Case 3322115/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person, with assistance from Ms Soko For the v Mr J Byrne, Solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 3322115/2019
- Decision date
- 22 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smeaton Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person, with assistance from Ms Soko For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote hearing before Employment Judge Smeaton on 22 March 2021. The Claimant, Ms M Sam, appeared in person with assistance from Ms Soko. The Respondent was represented by Mr J Byrne, Solicitor. The Tribunal recorded that the hearing was fully remote and that the documents referred to comprised a bundle of 55 pages.
The only claim addressed in the written judgment was unfair dismissal. The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider that complaint because it was presented outside the time limit in s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. It further held that it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim within the time limit, and alternatively that it was not presented within a reasonable period of time thereafter.
On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The judgment did not record any monetary award or any separate remedy findings, and reasons were stated orally at the hearing with written reasons not to be provided unless requested in accordance with the note appended to the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint because the claim was presented outside the time limit in s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. It found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, alternatively that it was not presented within a reasonable period afterwards. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 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.