Case 3335156/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Not present, nor represented For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3335156/2018
- Decision date
- 9 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cassel Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Not present, nor represented For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Richard Sumner brought claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages against Tesco Stores Limited. The hearing was converted to a preliminary hearing to decide jurisdiction: whether the unfair dismissal claim could be heard given that it had been filed before the claimant's employment ended, and whether the unlawful deduction claim was out of time.
The tribunal found that the Early Conciliation Certificate had been issued before the claimant's termination of employment, and therefore it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint. It also found that the deduction complained of was payable on 27 July 2018, that the Acas early conciliation process began on 7 August 2018 and the certificate was issued on 7 September 2018, so the last day to present the unlawful deduction claim was 26 November 2018.
Because the claim form was received on 2 December 2018, and there was no evidence or submission that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim by 26 November 2018, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction over the unlawful deduction claim. Both claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal held that the Early Conciliation Certificate had been issued before the claimant's termination of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The claim was presented on 2 December 2018, after the last day for presentation on 26 November 2018, and there was no evidence that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.