Case 3322748/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Martin Feazey v Culina Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3322748/2021
- Decision date
- 14 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Martin Feazey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Martin Feazey, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Culina Group Limited. The hearing took place at Cambridge on 14 July 2022 before Employment Judge Michell, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mrs Jenny Powell, HR representative.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim on limitation grounds. It found the claim had been presented out of time and was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented within three months of the effective date of termination, making due allowance for the extension of time under s.207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Because the time limit was not met, the tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the complaint pursuant to s.111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No findings on the substantive merits of the dismissal were made, and no monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time. The tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented within three months of the effective date of termination, making due allowance for the s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996 extension of time, and therefore lacked jurisdiction under s.111(2) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- three-month time limit
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.