Case 1302800/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302800/2021
- Decision date
- 25 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr. E. Stanley, Mr. J. Kelly
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Birmingham hearing on 18, 21, 23, 24 and 25 August 2023, Employment Judge Wedderspoon sitting with Mr E. Stanley and Mr J. Kelly dismissed Mr A. Dennis's complaint of victimisation. The tribunal held that complaint was not well founded.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's complaints of detriment under section 146 TULRCA 1992. It held those complaints were not well founded, and it separately found that the detriment complaints dating from 2017, 27 September 2019, 25 and 26 December 2020, 1 January 2021 and 6 January 2021 were out of time because it was reasonably practicable for them to have been brought in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint of victimisation dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | Complaint of detriment under section 146 TULRCA 1992 dismissed as not well founded; detriment complaints dating from 2017, 27 September 2019, 25 and 26 December 2020, 1 January 2021 and 6 January 2021 were found out of time because it was reasonably practicable for them to have been brought in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.146 TULRCA 1992
- reasonably practicable
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.