Case 1305643/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Parlby v Crossroads Care Cheshire, Manchester and Merseyside Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305643/2022
- Decision date
- 13 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
- Venue
- West Midlands
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Parlby
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary jurisdiction decision by Tribunal Judge Overton sitting alone at a video hearing on 17 March 2023. The tribunal considered Mr Parlby's constructive unfair dismissal claim and his claim for a redundancy payment, together with his disability discrimination claims against Crossroads Care Cheshire, Manchester and Merseyside Limited.
The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the constructive unfair dismissal claim under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996 or the redundancy payment claim under s.135 Employment Rights Act 1996. It accepted that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the ET1 claim form within the original time limit, but found that he failed to present the claims within a reasonable further period. Those claims were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
By contrast, the tribunal held that it did have jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination claims because it was just and equitable to extend time. The judgment does not decide the substance of those discrimination allegations, only that they may proceed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal accepted that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the ET1 within the primary time limit, but found that he did not present the claim within a reasonable further period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal accepted that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the ET1 within the primary time limit, but found that he did not present the claim within a reasonable further period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that it did have jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination claims because it was just and equitable to extend time. The merits were not determined in this decision. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- not reasonably practicable
- reasonable further period
- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.135 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.