Case 1401075/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Wills v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401075/2021
- Decision date
- 23 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Wills
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered preliminary issues concerning time limits and jurisdiction. The claimant had brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability and age discrimination. He accepted that all alleged acts of discrimination had occurred by the end of his employment, whether the effective date of termination was treated as August or September 2019. The claim was treated as presented on 26 March 2021.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had experienced anxiety, homelessness, difficulties with accommodation, criminal proceedings, problems with a defective car, difficulties accessing the internet during lockdown, and issues with Universal Credit. It also found that during the relevant period he was able to pursue other matters, including dealings with the Financial Ombudsman, an appeal concerning Universal Credit, and complaints relating to the police.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal concluded that even if it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim within three months, the claim had not been presented within a reasonable period thereafter. For the discrimination claims, it concluded that the delay was well over a year beyond the deadline, that the claimant had not given a satisfactory explanation for presenting the claims when he did, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore held that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the claim because it was presented out of time and it lacked jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the discrimination claim because it was presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the discrimination claim because it was presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust v Williams
- Nolan v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Olufunso Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- 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.