Case 6027664/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Robin Kendal Priestley v Export Credits Guarantee Department — 2025
- Case reference
- 6027664/2025
- Decision date
- 25 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elliott Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Robin Kendal Priestley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at Leeds Employment Tribunal on 25 November 2025 before Employment Judge Elliott, sitting in public by CVP. The claimant, Robin Kendal Priestley, appeared in person and the respondent, Export Credits Guarantee Department, was represented by counsel.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were not presented within the applicable time limits. It further found that it was reasonably practicable to do so within time.
On that basis, both complaints were dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that the wrongful dismissal complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- time limits
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.