Case 1403927/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Oakley v Mitie Ltd Heard by cloud video — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403927/2019
- Decision date
- 25 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Oakley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered two claims brought by Mr J Oakley against Mitie Ltd: unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. It held that the unfair dismissal claim had not been presented to the tribunal in time and found that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also held that the disability discrimination claim had not been presented in time. It found that it was not just and equitable for that claim to proceed, and dismissed it. The written record states that the claimant's claims were therefore dismissed in their entirety. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was not presented in time. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time and dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the disability discrimination claim was not presented in time. It found that it was not just and equitable for the claim to proceed and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- not presented in time
- 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.