Case 3321258/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Kalyan v The Hillingdon Hospitals University NHS Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 3321258/2021
- Decision date
- 3 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tuck KC
- Venue
- Watford ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Kalyan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss J Kalyan worked for The Hillingdon Hospitals University NHS Trust as Team Leader in Clinical Records from 3 December 2018 until her dismissal took effect on 8 November 2019. She presented claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract on 13 October 2021, after ACAS early conciliation in August and September 2021. The tribunal held that both claims were presented well outside the statutory time limits, and that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been brought in time.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 8 November 2019, so the ordinary limitation period expired on 7 February 2020. The claimant relied on waiting for the respondent's internal complaint process and on advice from her union, but the tribunal held that waiting for an internal process does not stop time running. It also noted that if union advice had been negligent, any remedy would lie against the union rather than the employer.
The tribunal took account of the claimant's bereavement and illness, including her father's death and COVID, but held that even if those matters meant it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim by 7 February 2020, she still had not brought the claim within a reasonable further period. The tribunal found that she was able to contact ACAS and present her case promptly once she decided to do so in summer 2021, and that she could have done so during 2020. It therefore dismissed both claims as out of time. It also recorded that the claimant had less than one year's service, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint in any event.
On breach of contract, the tribunal said it was not clear what contractual term was relied on, other than an alleged term that complaints would be dealt with within a reasonable period. It also observed that the complaint about delay was raised after termination, so there was no extant breach of contract claim on termination and no jurisdiction in any event.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as presented out of time; the tribunal also held the claimant did not have sufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed as out of time and because the tribunal was not satisfied there was a clear contractual claim arising out of or outstanding on termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 111 ERA 1996
- section 207B ERA 1996
- 1994 Extension of Jurisdiction Order paragraph 3(c)
- reasonably practicable
- Wall's Meat v Khan
- Porter v Bandridge
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum
- Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority
- Friend v Institution of Professional Managers and Specialists
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
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.