Case 1306041/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Biddle v Rugby Borough Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 1306041/2019
- Decision date
- 10 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wynn-Evans
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Biddle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Wynn-Evans sitting alone in Birmingham on 10 December 2019. The respondent’s application to amend its response was granted. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in accordance with the standard tribunal process.
On jurisdiction, the tribunal held that Mr Biddle’s unfair dismissal claim could not proceed because it had not been presented within the time limit in sections 111(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal therefore did not have jurisdiction to hear that claim.
The tribunal held that it did have jurisdiction to hear Mr Biddle’s disability discrimination complaints because they were presented within the time limits in sections 123(1)(a) and (b) of the Equality Act 2010. The decision is a preliminary one and does not determine the merits of the disability discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim because it was not presented within the time limit in sections 111(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held it did have jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination complaints because they were presented within the time limits in sections 123(1)(a) and (b) of the Equality Act 2010. The merits were not determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111(2)(a) & (b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(1)(a) & (b) Equality Act 2010
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.