Case 1402714/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Timms, lay representative v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1402714/2019
- Decision date
- 6 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Timms, lay representative
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Bristol on 4 February 2020, Employment Judge Midgley considered Mrs S Ruth's sex discrimination claim against Emcor Group (UK) plc. The tribunal held that the claim was not brought within the primary time limit in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal further found that it would not be just and equitable to extend time to allow the claim to be brought out of time. On that basis, it concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The claim was dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in accordance with the notice on the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was not presented within the primary time limit in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.