Mr S Threlkeld v Matrix Telematics Ltd: 2411411/2019
JUDGMENT
ON PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING It is the Judgment of the Tribunal that:[1]The application to strike out the claim pursuant to Rule 37(1)(c) of Schedule I of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 (“the 2013 Rules”) on the basis that the claim does not comply with the provisions of Rules 8-14 of the 2013 Rules is dismissed as the claimant made a minor error in naming a respondent other than Matrix Telematics Limited and it would not be in the interests of justice to strike out the claim on that basis.[2]The name of the respondent is amended to Matrix Telematics Limited without any necessity for re-service.[3]It was reasonably practicable for the claim of unfair dismissal to have been filed within the time limit set out in section 111(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) as extended by the provisions of section 207(B) of the 1996 Act namely by 16 August 2019. Accordingly, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider the claim of unfair dismissal advanced pursuant to section 111(1) of the 1996 Act which was filed on 11 September 2019 and the claim is struck out. Case Number: 2411411/2019[4]In any event, in advancing the claim for unfair dismissal only on 11 September 2019, the claimant did not institute these proceedings within such further period as was reasonable by reference to the provisions of section 111(2)(b) of the 1996 Act. EMPLOYMENT JUDGE A M BUCHANAN