Case 3321236/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the First v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3321236/2021
- Decision date
- 13 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant’s claims for redundancy payment and holiday pay were out of time and that it therefore had no jurisdiction. It recorded that no grounds had been advanced to extend time on just and equitable principles.
In relation to redundancy payment, the tribunal found that the claimant was made redundant on 31 October 2020 and had filed his Employment Tribunal claim on 13 October 2021. The employer later entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation on 13 January 2022. The Secretary of State received a claim for payment under ss.166 and 167 ERA 1996 on 8 February 2022 and rejected it on 9 February 2022.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant had taken none of the steps required by s.164 ERA 1996 within the relevant time limit, so he had no right to a redundancy payment from the employer and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to make an award against the Secretary of State. The claimant’s only explanation for late filing was that he had left matters to his wife to deal with, which the tribunal did not treat as sufficient to justify an extension of time. The claim for a redundancy payment was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held the claim was out of time under s.164 ERA 1996 and that there were no grounds to extend time on just and equitable principles. It found the claimant had taken none of the required steps within the relevant time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment’s opening line states that the holiday pay claim was out of time and that the tribunal had no jurisdiction. The detailed reasons section deals only with the redundancy payment claim, so the holiday pay reasoning is not separately explained in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.164 ERA 1996
- s.166 and 167 ERA 1996
- just and equitable principles
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.