Case 1406135/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1406135/2019
- Decision date
- 15 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton ET
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place by CVP on 9 July 2020 before Employment Judge Rayner. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal recorded that a face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and nobody requested one.
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was found to have been presented out of time. The tribunal found there was no ground to extend time for that claim, and it was therefore struck out. No remedy was awarded in relation to that claim.
The tribunal took a different view on the disability discrimination claim. It held that it was just and equitable to extend time in respect of that claim, so the disability discrimination claim was allowed to continue. The judgment does not determine the merits of that claim and records that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was filed out of time and that there was no ground to extend time, so it was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time for the disability discrimination claim, so that claim was continuing and no merits outcome was reached in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend 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.