Case 1311256/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Baker v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 1311256/2020
- Decision date
- 13 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harding Dated
Parties
4 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing held at Midlands West on 12-13 July 2022 before Employment Judge Harding. The tribunal considered time-limit issues for the claims brought by Mr Cooper, Mr Cosnett, Mr Cotterill, Mr Bartlam and Mr Baker. The extracted text does not identify the underlying substantive claim type, and it records no remedy hearing or monetary award.
The tribunal found that the claims presented by Mr Cooper, Mr Cosnett and Mr Cotterill were out of time, but that it was just and equitable to extend time, so those claims may proceed. It also recorded that Mr Bartlam's claim was presented in time, and that in light of information provided by R1 both respondents agreed the claim was in time.
By contrast, the tribunal found that Mr Baker's claim, case number 1311256/2020, was out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal held that it therefore had no jurisdiction to hear that claim and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Mr Cooper's claim was found to be out of time, but the tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time so the claim may proceed. The extracted text does not state the underlying substantive claim type. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Mr Cosnett's claim was found to be out of time, but the tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time so the claim may proceed. The extracted text does not state the underlying substantive claim type. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Mr Cotterill's claim was found to be out of time, but the tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time so the claim may proceed. The extracted text does not state the underlying substantive claim type. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Mr Bartlam's claim was presented in time, and both respondents agreed that it was in time. The extracted text does not state the underlying substantive claim type. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Mr Baker's claim was out of time and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable to extend time
- no jurisdiction to hear the claim
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.