Case 1404083/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Langdon v 1 Fortem Solutions Ltd 2 Willmott Dixon Holdings Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1404083/2019
- Decision date
- 15 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Langdon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat before Employment Judge Reed alone on 10 July 2020. By consent, the second respondent, Willmott Dixon Holdings Limited, was dismissed from the proceedings. The tribunal also refused the claimant leave to amend the claim so as to include events after his dismissal on 12 June 2019.
On limitation, the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim against Fortem Solutions Ltd was found not to have been presented in time. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for that claim to have been presented in time, and it was therefore dismissed. The judgment did not determine the substantive merits of the dismissal complaint.
The claimant’s disability discrimination claims were also found to have been presented out of time, but the tribunal held that it was just and equitable for those claims to proceed. No liability or remedy findings were made on the discrimination claims in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim was held not to have been presented in time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claims were held not to have been presented in time, but the tribunal found it was just and equitable that they should proceed. No merits decision was made in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- 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.