Case 3331437/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Kunbus v Damasgate Wholesale Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3331437/2018
- Decision date
- 9 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloch QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Kunbus
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 27 March 2019 before Employment Judge Bloch QC sitting alone at Watford, the tribunal held that the ET1 filed on 19 July 2018 did not contain a constructive dismissal claim. The claimant's application to amend the claim form so that it stated he was complaining of unfair dismissal was allowed, meaning the unfair dismissal case could proceed on that basis.
In the alternative, the tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the second claim form issued on 5 October 2018 within the time limit in s.111 ERA 1996 as extended by s.207B. The tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the respondent's counterclaim in claim number 3333905/2018. This record contains no merits decision and no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the ET1 filed on 19 July 2018 did not contain a constructive dismissal claim, so amendment would be required if the claimant wished to pursue such a claim. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's application to amend the claim form to state that he was complaining of unfair dismissal was allowed. The judgment on preliminary issues did not determine the merits of any unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the respondent's counterclaim in claim number 3333905/2018. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- 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.