Case 1400537/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Clayton in person v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400537/2020
- Decision date
- 12 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Street Representation
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Clayton in person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely on 14 December 2020 before Employment Judge Street, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel. Oral evidence was taken under affirmation. The Tribunal dealt with the matter as a remote audio hearing because a face-to-face hearing was not practicable and the issues could be decided remotely.
The Tribunal struck out both the unfair dismissal claim and the disability discrimination claim because they were presented out of time. It refused to extend time in respect of each claim and said that, as a result, the claims were out of the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
In relation to the disability discrimination claim, the Tribunal also stated that Mr Clayton was not a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material times. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim struck out as out of time. The Tribunal refused to extend time and held the claim was out of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim struck out as out of time. The Tribunal refused to extend time and held the claim was out of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. It also stated that Mr Clayton was not a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material times. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.