Case 1305630/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L. May v Q3 Academies Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 1305630/2018
- Decision date
- 3 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L. May
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Birmingham on 26 February 2020, before Employment Judge Britton, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The written judgment records that the direct sex discrimination claim, the arrears of pay claim and the unauthorised deduction from wages claim were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay claims because they had not been presented in time, despite it being reasonably practicable to do so. On that basis, the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction over those claims.
The tribunal also dismissed the discrimination and harassment claims because they were not presented in time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The respondent's application for costs was refused. The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records that the direct sex discrimination claim was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Breach of contract | The arrears of pay claim was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unauthorised deduction from wages claim was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because it was not presented in time despite it being reasonably practicable to do so, so the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was dismissed because it was not presented in time despite it being reasonably practicable to do so, so the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was dismissed because it was not presented in time despite it being reasonably practicable to do so, so the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable to extend time
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.