Case 1402088/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Carpenter v Nortim Precision Engineering Limited — 2022

Case reference: 1402088/2022
Decision date: 25 November 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Leith Representation

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr J Carpenter

Respondent

Nortim Precision Engineering Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal, sitting at Bristol via CVP before Employment Judge Leith on 17 November 2022, dealt with complaints of (constructive) unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages/breach of contract, and age discrimination. It held that all of those complaints had been presented outside the applicable time limit.

Because the claims were out of time, the Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to consider them. The result was that each complaint was dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	The judgment records the complaint as '(constructive) unfair dismissal' and says it was presented outside the applicable time limit, so the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider it.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Dismissed because it was presented outside the applicable time limit and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	The breach of contract complaint was presented outside the applicable time limit and was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—
Age discrimination	The age discrimination complaint was presented outside the applicable time limit and was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.	Dismissed	Age	—

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.