Case 3335049/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Barnaby Large, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3335049/2018
- Decision date
- 5 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Barnaby Large, of counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Hyams sitting alone at Watford via CVP on 5 March 2021 in the matter of Mr Y Patel v Mentmore Investments LLP. The tribunal considered claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and breach of contract.
The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for those claims to have been presented within the primary three-month limitation period as extended by the early conciliation period. Because the claims were presented outside that extended period, the tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear them.
No merits findings were made and no monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Held to be presented outside the primary limitation period as extended by the early conciliation period; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Held to be presented outside the primary limitation period as extended by the early conciliation period; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Held to be presented outside the primary limitation period as extended by the early conciliation period; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.