Case 1311250/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Oles, Lay Representative (claimant’s wife) For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1311250/2020
- Decision date
- 26 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow Signed
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs G Oles, Lay Representative (claimant’s wife) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Dimbylow on 26 July 2021. The claimant was represented by his wife, Mrs G Oles, and the respondent by counsel, Mr M Salter. The tribunal dealt only with limitation and jurisdiction issues; no merits findings were made on the dismissal or discrimination allegations.
The tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, declined to extend time, and therefore concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. That claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also held that the claimant's disability discrimination claims were presented out of time. It found that they did not form part of a continuing act or continuing omission so as to bring them within time, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. Those claims were therefore also outside the tribunal's jurisdiction and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim in time and did not extend time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to claims for disability discrimination in the plural. The tribunal found they were presented out of time, did not form part of a continuing act or continuing omission, and it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear them. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- continuing act
- 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.