Case 1311064/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P D Sinnassamy v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs — 2021
- Case reference
- 1311064/2020
- Decision date
- 27 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P D Sinnassamy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. Employment Judge Cookson found that it had not been reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the complaint within the statutory time limit in s111(2)(a), but that he then failed to bring it within a further reasonable period of time. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's complaint of unlawful disability discrimination. The judge found that the complaint was not brought within the time limit in s123(1) of the Equality Act 2010, and was not brought within a period found to be just and equitable. The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider that claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because, although it was not reasonably practicable to bring the complaint within the statutory time limit, the claimant did not then bring it within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not brought within the statutory time limit and was not brought within a period found to be just and equitable. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s111(2)(a)
- s123(1) Equality Act 2010
- 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.