Case 1304268/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr W Rutherford First v Carlisle Cleaning Services Ltd t/a Carlisle Support Services Second Respondent: Mr M Smith Third Respondent: West Midlands Trains Limited — 2019

Case reference: 1304268/2018
Decision date: 30 April 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge V Jones Representation
Venue: Birmingham

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr W Rutherford First

Respondent

Carlisle Cleaning Services Ltd t/a Carlisle Support Services Second Respondent: Mr M Smith Third Respondent: West Midlands Trains Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the preliminary hearing in Birmingham on 31 July 2019, before Employment Judge V Jones, the tribunal dealt with jurisdiction and case-management applications arising from the claimant's claims against three respondents. The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims against the second and third respondents because they had been presented after the statutory time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend that limit.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant's claims against the second and third respondents because they were presented after expiry of the statutory time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time.	Dismissed	Race	—
Race discrimination	The first respondent's applications to strike out the claims relating to Allegations 1 and 2 as out of time, and to strike out the claims relating to Allegations 2 and 3 under rule 37(1)(a), were refused. The alternative application for a deposit order under rule 39 was also refused.	Other	Race	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.