Case 6007503/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Needham v Tyne North Training Limited HELD AT: Newcastle — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007503/2025
- Decision date
- 22 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moss REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Needham
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal after his employment ended on 30 September 2024. The tribunal considered whether the claim, presented on 4 March 2025, was in time under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, given that the primary time limit expired on 2 March 2025 after ACAS early conciliation.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant experienced significant difficulty accessing his laptop on 2 March 2025 and that the situation affected his mental health. It also considered evidence about later diagnoses of ASD and ADHD, but found that the medical evidence did not show that those conditions prevented him from presenting the claim by the deadline.
The tribunal found that the substantial cause of the late presentation was the claimant's inability to access the device he chose to use on the final day. It concluded that it had been reasonably practicable for him to present the claim in time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
- Consignia plc v Sealy
- Initial Electronic Security Systems Ltd v Avdic
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.