Case 1300334/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Skinner (lay representative - family friend) For the v Mr P. Bownes (representative) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1300334/2020
- Decision date
- 5 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Skinner (lay representative - family friend) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Perry in Birmingham on 29 June 2022. The hearing was conducted in public by Cloud Video Platform. The issues were limited to timing, with the claimant pursuing the strike out and/or deposit application solely on the basis of limitation matters.
The tribunal held that the claimant's complaints pursued on the basis of race and religion were presented in time. Those claims were therefore not rejected on limitation grounds at this stage, although the judgment does not determine their substantive merits.
By contrast, the tribunal held that the claimant's wages complaints were not presented in time. It found that it was reasonably practicable for those complaints to have been presented in time and concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear them. The respondent's application to withdraw its strike out application under rule 37(1)(e) was granted on the basis that it could be re-made if prejudice became apparent as a result of disclosure. A separate case management order was to follow, and no monetary remedy was recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary limitation issue only. The tribunal held that the race complaints were presented in time; it did not determine the merits at this hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Preliminary limitation issue only. The tribunal held that the religion complaints were presented in time; it did not determine the merits at this hearing. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the wages complaints were out of time, that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time, and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to hear them. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.