Case 1311362/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Mr Williams, solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 1311362/2020
- Decision date
- 11 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the statutory time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. The unlawful deductions of wages claim was also out of time under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and was dismissed on the same jurisdictional basis.
The race discrimination claim was likewise brought outside the statutory time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment does not record any extension of time or merits finding on the discrimination allegation; instead, it states that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
In the circumstances, the tribunal dismissed all claims. No monetary award or remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the statutory time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the statutory time limit in section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the statutory time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 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.