Case 1307377/2019 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2020

Case reference: 1307377/2019
Decision date: 20 July 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hughes Signed

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing by Skype on 20 July 2020, Employment Judge Hughes considered the claimant's three case references and the proposed amendments. The claim for unfair dismissal and other payments in case 1302335/2020 was presented out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present that claim in time, held that there was no jurisdiction to hear it, and dismissed it.

The claimant's direct race discrimination and victimisation claims in connection with his dismissal on 22 September 2019 were also out of time, but the tribunal held that it was just and equitable to allow them to proceed. The application to amend the case to add victimisation in respect of the appeal outcome on 28 October 2019 was not permitted. The tribunal also recorded that the application to amend to claim automatically unfair dismissal under s103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed because that claim was out of time and there was no jurisdiction to hear it.

The tribunal permitted the amendment to attach public interest disclosures and detriments to facts already pleaded, treating it as a re-labelling exercise and finding that it was in the interests of justice and the public interest for those claims to be heard. The first claim made on 13 September 2019 was dismissed on withdrawal, with no prejudice to the claimant's position on the online claim. The claims were consolidated and a consolidated response was directed by 10 August 2020. No remedy was determined in this decision.

Claims and outcomes

5 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
Unfair dismissal	Case 1302335/2020: the claim for unfair dismissal and other payments was presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so it had no jurisdiction and dismissed it.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	The direct race discrimination claim in connection with dismissal on 22 September 2019 was out of time, but the tribunal held it was just and equitable to allow it to proceed.	Other	Race	—
Victimisation	The victimisation claim in connection with dismissal on 22 September 2019 was out of time, but the tribunal held it was just and equitable to allow it to proceed; amendment to add victimisation in respect of the appeal outcome on 28 October 2019 was refused.	Other	Race	—
Whistleblowing	The application to amend to claim automatically unfair dismissal under s103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed because that claim was out of time and there was no jurisdiction to hear it.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Amendment to attach public interest disclosures and detriments to facts already pleaded was permitted because it was treated as a re-labelling exercise and the tribunal considered it in the interests of justice and the public interest.

Legal tests applied

5 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.