Case 6002480/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr J Ilangaratne v Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust HELD AT: Hull — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002480/2024
- Decision date
- 10 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr J Ilangaratne
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr J Ilangaratne worked for Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust as a Specialty Doctor from 2011 until his employment ended by agreement on 3 May 2023 under an ACAS COT3. He later pursued a small money claim, said to be around £5,000 plus interest and consequential loss, arguing that sums paid under the agreement should be recalculated after the NHS announced a 6% pay award on 7 August 2023 and relying on section 16.27 of the NHS Terms and Conditions Handbook.
At the 1 July 2025 preliminary hearing, the claimant had already withdrawn his unlawful deduction from wages complaint, so that complaint was dismissed on withdrawal. The only live issue was his breach of contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994. The tribunal held that the claim did not arise or remain outstanding on the termination date because the alleged entitlement only came into being when the retrospective pay award was announced, and it therefore fell outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. The tribunal referred to Miller Bros & FP Butler Ltd v Johnston and Peninsular Business Services Ltd v Sweeney in reaching that conclusion.
In the alternative, the tribunal held that the claim was out of time. It accepted that the claimant was dealing with a very serious illness, including treatment from October 2023 to March 2024, and that he had entered ACAS conciliation on 27 November 2023, but found that a reasonable further period for presenting the claim ended by the end of April 2024. The claim was not presented until 17 May 2024, so it would have been dismissed on limitation grounds as well.
The claimant's October 2024 amendment application, seeking to add unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and victimisation allegations, was refused. Applying Selkent Bus Company Ltd v More and Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd, the tribunal held that those causes of action were not discernible from the original ET1 and that the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant had withdrawn this complaint before the preliminary issues were decided; the judgment records it as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for damages under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994. The tribunal held it was outside jurisdiction because the alleged entitlement only arose after the 7 August 2023 NHS pay award, and alternatively that it was presented too late. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994, art. 3(c)
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994, art. 7
- Miller Bros & FP Butler Ltd v Johnston [2002] ICR 744
- Peninsular Business Services Ltd v Mr J Sweeney EAT/1096/02/SM
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v More [1996] ICR 836
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd [1974] ICR 650
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.