Case 3322863/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Shaun Radford v British Airways plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 3322863/2021
- Decision date
- 14 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Shaun Radford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the claimant's complaint under s.111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that he was unfairly dismissed. It found that the complaint had not been presented to the Tribunal, or notified to ACAS under the Early Conciliation scheme, before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination.
The Tribunal further found that the claimant had not satisfied it that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period. It therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint for lack of jurisdiction because it was not presented to the Tribunal or notified to ACAS within the applicable three-month period, and the claimant had not satisfied the Tribunal that presentation within that period was not reasonably practicable. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Early Conciliation
- not reasonably practicable
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.