Case 6032659/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Harris First v Ads Windows Limited Second Respondent: Ace Windows (NE) Limited (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6032659/2025
- Decision date
- 18 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Robertson Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Harris First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Mr Harris's complaint for statutory redundancy pay had been presented within the applicable time limit. That complaint was permitted to proceed, but its merits and any remedy were not determined in this judgment.
The complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract concerning notice pay, and unlawful deduction from wages had not been presented within the applicable time limit. The Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present those complaints in time and therefore dismissed them. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The Tribunal decided that the complaint was presented within the applicable time limit and would proceed; its merits were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay complaint was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable to present the complaints within the applicable time limit
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.