Case 1404630/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Representing himself For the v Mr Reeds, solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 1404630/2020
- Decision date
- 7 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Representing himself For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 30 April 2021, before Employment Judge Dawson, the respondent was represented by Mr Reeds and the claimant appeared in person. The judgment records that the hearing was conducted by CVP and that the tribunal sat in public.
The tribunal did not determine the claims on their merits. It held that the claims were struck out because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine them given the date on which they were presented. No factual findings were made on the underlying employment issues.
No remedy was awarded, and the judgment does not record any compensatory, basic award, or other monetary component. The written record was sent to the parties on 7 May 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment only states that 'the claims' were struck out for lack of jurisdiction because of the date of presentation. The race discrimination type is taken from the case listing/context rather than the judgment text itself. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment only states that 'the claims' were struck out for lack of jurisdiction because of the date of presentation. The unfair dismissal claim type is taken from the case listing/context rather than the judgment text itself. | Struck out | — | — |
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.