Case 1401608/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J. Torres v Tulip Fresh Meats Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401608/2019
- Decision date
- 3 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MBE Harper
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J. Torres
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dealt only with limitation and jurisdiction. It held that it was reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim and the public interest dismissal and detriment claims to have been presented within time, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear them. No merits findings were made on those claims.
The race discrimination claim was also found to be out of time. The Tribunal decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time for presentation, so it likewise did not have jurisdiction to hear that claim. No remedy was awarded because none of the claims proceeded to a merits determination.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim to have been presented within time, and therefore it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The Tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the public interest dismissal claim to have been presented within time, and therefore it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The Tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the public interest detriment claim to have been presented within time, and therefore it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination claim was filed out of time and the Tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time for presentation, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.