Case 1400727/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Craig Stephens v Department for Work and Pensions — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400727/2021
- Decision date
- 17 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. M.
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Craig Stephens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal decided that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim had been presented out of time. It found that it had been reasonably practicable for that claim to have been presented in time.
The tribunal also considered the claimant's claim of discrimination arising from disability. Although that claim was presented out of time, the tribunal found that it was presented within such other period as it considered just and equitable.
The respondent's application for the claim to be struck out or made subject to a deposit order failed. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time in circumstances where it was reasonably practicable to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment concerns discrimination arising from disability. It states that the claim was presented out of time but within such other period as the tribunal considered just and equitable; it does not determine the merits of the discrimination claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- 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.