Case 1309204/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1309204/2020
- Decision date
- 16 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Travis was employed by PPG Architectural Coatings Limited from 11 April 2016 until his dismissal on 2 October 2018 at an ill-health capability meeting. The respondent said the reason was capability following continuous absence from work since 8 March 2018. The claimant attended the meeting, made written and oral submissions, and later appealed, but he withdrew the appeal by voicemail on 13 November 2018 and the dismissal was confirmed on 15 November 2018.
On the unfair dismissal jurisdiction issue, the tribunal held that the primary time limit expired on 2 January 2019. It accepted that the claimant was unable to present a claim while detained in hospital from 8 February 2019 to 19 July 2019, but found no evidence that he was unable to present the claim before that admission. The judge relied on the claimant's ability to deal with the dismissal meeting and appeal process, the absence of medical intervention until February 2019, and the fact that he had not shown any earlier inability to proceed with a tribunal claim.
After discharge from hospital, the tribunal found that the claimant needed help with his affairs but did not establish that he could not complete and present a claim form. It noted that he sought assistance with debts, housing and benefits, contacted legal advisers and ACAS, and that his GP indicated he was fit to deal with the matter by June 2020 at the latest. The claim form was not presented until 4 September 2020, so the tribunal held that it was out of time and that the claim failed for want of jurisdiction.
The claimant also applied on 8 June 2021 to amend the claim to add discrimination allegations, but clarified that he wished to proceed only with disability discrimination. The tribunal refused that amendment under the Selkent principles, treating it as a significant new cause of action raised long after dismissal and without a satisfactory explanation for the delay. It also held that it would not be just and equitable to extend time for the proposed discrimination claim, even on the footing that the latest primary period might have run to 14 February 2019.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction under s.111(2) ERA 1996 because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied it was not reasonably practicable to present it earlier or within a reasonable period afterwards. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant sought permission on 8 June 2021 to amend to add disability discrimination. The tribunal refused the amendment under Selkent and did not determine the merits of any discrimination complaint. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- s.123 EqA
- just and equitable
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434
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.