Case 1309671/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1309671/2020
- Decision date
- 15 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 15 October 2021, Employment Judge Perry, sitting alone, heard Miss R Russell-Turner's claims against Birmingham City University. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms K Eddy of counsel. The hearing was conducted in public by the cloud video platform.
The tribunal held that the claim was not presented in time. In relation to the unfair dismissal complaint, it found that it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim in time and that, even so, it was not presented within a further reasonable period.
In relation to the discrimination complaints, the tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time. On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint was presented out of time, that it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time, and that it was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination complaints, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear them. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable test
- just and equitable extension of 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.