Case 1311171/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Richard Goodhead, lay representative For the 1 & 2 v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1311171/2020
- Decision date
- 29 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean Appearance
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Richard Goodhead, lay representative For the 1 & 2
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Birmingham by CVP on 24 September 2021, Employment Judge Dean considered Mrs A Reddington's complaints against Wm Morrisons Supermarket plc and Mr David Potts. The written judgment records that the complaints were not presented in accordance with s111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and s123 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claimant's complaints and dismissed them against both respondents. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless a request was made within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at the preliminary hearing because the tribunal held the complaint was not presented in accordance with s111 ERA 1996 and it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed at the same preliminary hearing on the tribunal's jurisdiction/time-limit ruling; the written judgment does not separately discuss this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed on the tribunal's s123 Equality Act 2010 jurisdiction/time-limit ruling. The written judgment does not specify the protected characteristic, so this classification follows the case listing context. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed on the tribunal's s123 Equality Act 2010 jurisdiction/time-limit ruling. The written judgment does not specify the protected characteristic, so this classification follows the case listing context. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s123 Equality Act 2010
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.