Case 1400956/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Underhay v Nisbets plc Heard by Cloud video — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400956/2021
- Decision date
- 12 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Underhay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary judgment on limitation, not a merits decision. The tribunal recorded that Mr P Underhay's unfair dismissal claim had not been presented to the tribunal in time. It nevertheless held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented earlier and that it was presented within a further reasonable period, so the claim could proceed.
The tribunal reached the same overall position on the age discrimination claim. It found that the claim had not been presented in time, but decided that it was just and equitable for the claim to go forward. The judgment does not decide liability on either claim and contains no award of compensation.
The only protected characteristic identified in the judgment is age. No panel members are listed, and the decision was given by Employment Judge Reed sitting alone. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim had not been presented in time, but held that it was not reasonably practicable for it to have been presented earlier and that it was presented within a further reasonable period, so it could proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found the age discrimination claim had not been presented in time, but decided that it was just and equitable for the claim to go forward. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- not reasonably practicable
- further reasonable period
- 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.