Case 3321649/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Tandi v JSA Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3321649/2019
- Decision date
- 7 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Tandi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place by telephone on 7 May 2020 before Employment Judge Postle. The tribunal recorded that the hearing was remote by consent and that no face-to-face hearing was held because it was not practicable and no party requested one.
The tribunal decided that it had no jurisdiction to hear Miss A Tandi's claims for breach of contract, holiday pay, and unfair dismissal. Its reason was limitation: it found that the claims were not issued within the requisite three-month period.
In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claims to have been issued in time, even allowing for the extension of time limits to facilitate conciliation under section 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claims were therefore dismissed.
No monetary award was made because all claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was not presented within the requisite three-month period, and it was reasonably practicable to have issued it in time even allowing for the s.207B ERA 1996 extension for conciliation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was not presented within the requisite three-month period, and it was reasonably practicable to have issued it in time even allowing for the s.207B ERA 1996 extension for conciliation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was not presented within the requisite three-month period, and it was reasonably practicable to have issued it in time even allowing for the s.207B ERA 1996 extension for conciliation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- s.207B ERA 1996
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.