Case 6011570/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Alexander Farmer v Hitachi Rail Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011570/2024
- Decision date
- 10 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Alexander Farmer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant pursued an unfair dismissal claim only. The tribunal recorded that his effective date of termination was 6 February 2024, the ordinary time limit expired on 5 May 2024, he contacted ACAS on 2 August 2024, and he presented the claim on 13 September 2024.
The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim within the normal three-month time limit. It relied on his knowledge of the right to bring a claim and the relevant time limits, his appeal and communications with the respondent during the limitation period, and the absence of evidence that his later ill-health affected the relevant period.
The tribunal therefore declined to extend time and held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed because it was presented outside the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. The decision section also states the claim must be struck out for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd 1974 ICR 53
- Palmer and anor v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 1984 ICR 372
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy 2019 EWCA Civ 2490
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd 1999 ICR 1202
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser EAT 0165/07
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.