Case 1402710/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Thomas Manning v Princes Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1402710/2019
- Decision date
- 4 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. M.
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Thomas Manning
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThomas Manning brought a constructive dismissal complaint and discrimination claims against Princes Limited. At the hearing on 30 January 2020, Employment Judge M. Salter held that the claim had been presented out of time.
For the constructive dismissal complaint, the tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the time limit and, in any event, that it was not presented within a reasonable period thereafter. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear that complaint.
For the discrimination claims, the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to exercise its discretion to extend time. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear those complaints either, and the claim was dismissed without any remedy being awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the constructive dismissal complaint was presented out of time, that it was reasonably practicable to present within time, and that in any event it was not presented within a reasonable period thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found the discrimination claims were presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- reasonable period thereafter
- 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.