Case 1400168/2022 · Employment Tribunal

in person The v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 1400168/2022
Decision date: 25 October 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Goraj Representation
Venue: Exeter

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

in person The

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mr D Greig, was employed by Babcock Land Defence Limited from July 2008 until 28 April 2021. He had breast cancer from December 2019 and later applied for ill health retirement. The tribunal found that the claimant created a claim form on 10 August 2021, but did not actually present it to the Employment Tribunals on that date. The claim was not lodged until 18 January 2022, after the ACAS early conciliation period had ended on 9 July 2021 and after the limitation date of 3 September 2021.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Redundancy	Statutory redundancy payment claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.	Withdrawn	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Tribunal held the complaint was out of time under s.111 ERA 1996; the relevant deadline was 3 September 2021 and the claim was not presented within a further reasonable period.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	Claim concerning the alleged lump sum on ill health retirement was treated only for limitation purposes and found out of time under Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994; the tribunal did not determine the respondent's misrepresentation jurisdiction point.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	Claim was pursued as disability discrimination under s.15 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal accepted the claimant was disabled by anxiety/depression/PTSD/panic attacks as at 28 April 2021, but refused to extend time under s.123(1) Equality Act 2010.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.