Case 1403544/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403544/2019
- Decision date
- 28 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emerton Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on a preliminary issue only, heard by Employment Judge Emerton sitting alone at Southampton on 28 September 2020. The claimant, Mr A Deen-Kamara, brought claims against Vivid Housing Limited for unfair dismissal, breach of contract/wrongful dismissal, and race discrimination.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims for want of jurisdiction because they were out of time. On the tribunal's findings, it was reasonably practical for those claims to have been presented within the applicable time limit.
The race discrimination claim was also dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time for that claim. No remedy was awarded, because the case was determined at the preliminary jurisdiction stage and the merits were not reached.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claim was out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practical for the claim to have been presented within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction as a wrongful dismissal claim; the tribunal found it was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.