Loading…

Case 6022493/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr L Brookes First v Second Respondent: Third Respondent: Fourth Respondent: Executive Telecommunications (UK) Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) Secretary of State for Business and Trade Mr S Hoskisson Mr J Brown — 2026

Case reference: 6022493/2024
Decision date: 19 May 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 22 July 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr L Brookes First

Respondent

Second Respondent: Third Respondent: Fourth Respondent: Executive Telecommunications (UK) Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) Secretary of State for Business and Trade Mr S Hoskisson Mr J Brown

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Brookes was dismissed without notice by Executive Telecommunications (UK) Limited on 1 July 2024, with gross misconduct given as the reason. ACAS early conciliation began on 30 September 2024 and concluded on 30 October 2024. The Tribunal found that the deadline for the unfair dismissal and notice pay complaints was 30 November 2024 and that the holiday pay and wages complaints were also out of time even if 31 July 2024 were used as the date of the alleged deduction.

The Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable for Mr Brookes to present the unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay and wages complaints in time. He had obtained legal assistance shortly after dismissal, knew that employment claims were subject to time limits, and was actively corresponding with his solicitors and others during the relevant period. Although the Tribunal accepted that he experienced mental health problems and family difficulties, it found that neither caused the delay. The Tribunal consequently dismissed those complaints against the First Respondent for lack of jurisdiction.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The complaint against the First Respondent was presented out of time. The Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present it within the primary time limit and therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it.	Dismissed	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The wrongful dismissal/notice pay complaint against the First Respondent was presented out of time. The Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present it within the primary time limit and therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	The holiday pay complaint against the First Respondent was presented out of time. Even using 31 July 2024 as the date of the alleged deduction, the Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The unauthorised deductions from wages complaint against the First Respondent was presented out of time. Even using 31 July 2024 as the date of the alleged deduction, the Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it.	Dismissed	—	—
Harassment	The harassment related to disability complaints against the First, Third and Fourth Respondents were dismissed because they were presented out of time and the Tribunal declined to grant a just and equitable extension. The Tribunal also held that, had it possessed jurisdiction over the complaints against the Third and Fourth Respondents, they would have been struck out under Rules 38(1)(a) and 38(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The discrimination arising from disability complaints against the First, Third and Fourth Respondents were dismissed because they were presented out of time and the Tribunal declined to grant a just and equitable extension. The Tribunal also held that, had it possessed jurisdiction over the complaints against the Third and Fourth Respondents, they would have been struck out under Rules 38(1)(a) and 38(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Redundancy	No final determination was made. The statutory redundancy payment claim under s.164 Employment Rights Act 1996 against the First Respondent was brought within its six-month primary time limit and will proceed to a full hearing. The claim involving the Secretary of State under s.188 will also proceed, with the applicable time-limit issues left for the full hearing.	Other	—	—

Claim type

Issue or finding

Outcome

Protected characteristic

Award

Unfair dismissal

The complaint against the First Respondent was presented out of time. The Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present it within the primary time limit and therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it.

Dismissed

—

Wrongful dismissal

The wrongful dismissal/notice pay complaint against the First Respondent was presented out of time. The Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present it within the primary time limit and therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it.

Dismissed

—

Holiday pay

The holiday pay complaint against the First Respondent was presented out of time. Even using 31 July 2024 as the date of the alleged deduction, the Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it.

Dismissed

—

Unlawful deduction from wages

The unauthorised deductions from wages complaint against the First Respondent was presented out of time. Even using 31 July 2024 as the date of the alleged deduction, the Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it.

Dismissed

—

Harassment

The harassment related to disability complaints against the First, Third and Fourth Respondents were dismissed because they were presented out of time and the Tribunal declined to grant a just and equitable extension. The Tribunal also held that, had it possessed jurisdiction over the complaints against the Third and Fourth Respondents, they would have been struck out under Rules 38(1)(a) and 38(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

Dismissed

Disability

—

Disability discrimination

The discrimination arising from disability complaints against the First, Third and Fourth Respondents were dismissed because they were presented out of time and the Tribunal declined to grant a just and equitable extension. The Tribunal also held that, had it possessed jurisdiction over the complaints against the Third and Fourth Respondents, they would have been struck out under Rules 38(1)(a) and 38(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

Dismissed

Disability

—

Redundancy

No final determination was made. The statutory redundancy payment claim under s.164 Employment Rights Act 1996 against the First Respondent was brought within its six-month primary time limit and will proceed to a full hearing. The claim involving the Secretary of State under s.188 will also proceed, with the applicable time-limit issues left for the full hearing.

Other

—

Mr L Brookes First v Second Respondent: Third Respondent: Fourth Respondent: Executive Telecommunications (UK) Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) Secretary of State for Business and Trade Mr S Hoskisson Mr J Brown — 2026

Parties

Claimant

Respondent

Key findings

Claims and outcomes

Legal tests applied

Official outcome judgment PDF

How we got this data