Case 1309072/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Dooley v Rubix UK Limited and 3 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 1309072/2022
- Decision date
- 26 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds Representation
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr M Dooley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP in Birmingham before Employment Judge Edmonds on 26 September 2023. The tribunal decided it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claims because they were presented out of time, and it dismissed them on that basis. No merits findings were made on the underlying complaints.
The claimant’s unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages claims were found not to have been presented within the three-month period beginning with the effective date of termination or deduction, plus the early conciliation extension. The tribunal was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable for those claims to have been presented before the end of that period.
The judgment also records that the claimant’s direct discrimination, victimisation and harassment claims were not presented within the three-month period beginning with the act to which they related, plus the early conciliation extension. The tribunal further found that they were not brought within such further period as it considered just and equitable. Written reasons were not provided beyond the oral reasons given at the hearing, unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for being presented out of time; the tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented before the end of the limitation period plus early conciliation extension. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed for being presented out of time; the tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented before the end of the limitation period plus early conciliation extension. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for being presented out of time; the tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented before the end of the limitation period plus early conciliation extension. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers to direct discrimination as part of the out-of-time finding. The race element is inferred from the case listing category supplied in the case context. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed for being presented out of time; the tribunal held the claims were not made within a further period that it thought just and equitable. The race element is inferred from the case listing category supplied in the case context. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- three-month limitation period
- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.