Case 1401396/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Connor (lay representative) and Mr Hemings in person For the v Mr Maratos (consultant) — 2023

Case reference: 1401396/2022
Decision date: 11 May 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hogarth Appearances

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Connor (lay representative) and Mr Hemings in person For the

Respondent

Mr Maratos (consultant)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The judgment records only jurisdictional rulings made orally at the hearing on 18 April 2023. For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held under section 111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within the normal time limit, and that he presented it within a further period the tribunal considered reasonable.

The tribunal also held that it had jurisdiction to hear the direct age discrimination and direct sex discrimination claims under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. Although those claims were not presented within the ordinary time limit, the tribunal found that they were presented within a period that was just and equitable.

The extracted text does not include any merits findings, liability findings, or remedy award. It states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the available record is limited to the preliminary limitation and jurisdiction decisions.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal decided it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim under section 111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 because it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and it was presented within a further reasonable period. No merits determination is recorded in the extracted text.	Other	—	—
Age discrimination	The tribunal decided it had jurisdiction to hear the direct age discrimination claim under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 because the claim, though out of time, was presented within a period the tribunal considered just and equitable. No merits determination is recorded in the extracted text.	Other	Age	—
Sex discrimination	The tribunal decided it had jurisdiction to hear the direct sex discrimination claim under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 because the claim, though out of time, was presented within a period the tribunal considered just and equitable. No merits determination is recorded in the extracted text.	Other	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.