Case 1400993/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Reynolds v The Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400993/2022
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Danvers Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Reynolds
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Reynolds was dismissed by the Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary on 9 August 2021. He presented an unfair dismissal claim on 13 March 2022 after ACAS early conciliation, and also brought disability discrimination complaints. At this preliminary hearing on 10 March 2023, the tribunal considered only limitation issues, not the merits of the discrimination allegations.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claim was outside the three-month time limit in s.111 ERA 1996 and that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. The claimant knew from the date of dismissal that he could complain to ACAS and the Employment Tribunal, but did not investigate the time limit until 1 March 2022. The tribunal accepted that he had some anxiety and health issues and that he hoped the internal appeal would restore his job, but it found that neither the manager's informal comment about appealing first nor the pending appeal made it impossible or not reasonably practicable to bring the claim sooner. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
For the discrimination claims, the tribunal recorded that the final alleged act was the dismissal on 9 August 2021 and that the claims, including discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment related to disability, were brought outside the primary three-month limit. Applying the just and equitable test under s.123 EqA 2010, the tribunal extended time. It relied on the claimant's genuine misunderstanding about waiting for the appeal process, his prompt action once he learned of the time limit, the support of his GMB representatives, the lack of significant prejudice to the respondent, and the fact that the eventual delay was more than a day or two but did not appear to have materially affected the cogency of the evidence. Those discrimination claims were allowed to proceed to the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time under s.111 ERA 1996 and dismissed after the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for discrimination arising from disability; the tribunal held the complaint in respect of dismissal and other acts on 9 August 2021 was within such period as was just and equitable, so it proceeds to final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Other | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim under the Equality Act 2010; the tribunal held the limitation objection failed on a just and equitable basis and the claim proceeds to final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability claim; the tribunal held the limitation objection failed on a just and equitable basis and the claim proceeds to final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.111 ERA 1996 reasonably practicable test
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Lowri Beck Services v Brophy
- s.123 EqA 2010 just and equitable test
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Apelogun-Gabriels v Lambeth LBC
- Wright v Wolverhampton City Council
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust v Williams
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.