Case 6000848/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Sewedo v Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000848/2023
- Decision date
- 7 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge EP Morgan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Sewedo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was struck out because the Claimant did not obtain an ACAS Early Conciliation certificate before presenting the tribunal claim. The judgment states that the claim was presented on 12 May 2023, while the Early Conciliation Certificate was obtained on 15 May 2023, so the requirement in section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 had not been satisfied at the time of presentation.
The tribunal referred to Pryce v Baxterstorey [2022] EAT 61, treating the early conciliation requirement as mandatory and not capable of being waived or cured by a later certificate. The Claimant was told he could present a fresh claim and seek an extension of time, but that did not affect the position in relation to the existing claim.
In written submissions, the Claimant said he had raised whistleblowing complaints, that the Respondent had not taken issue with the dates, and that he could not afford legal advice before presenting the claim. The tribunal held that none of those matters gave it power to waive the statutory requirement, and it concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. The complaint was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify a substantive statutory claim type; the complaint was struck out because the Claimant did not obtain an ACAS Early Conciliation certificate before presenting the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Pryce v Baxterstorey [2022] EAT 61
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.