Case 1600181/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Kemmer-Amoda v Lloyds Bank plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600181/2023
- Decision date
- 11 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Kemmer-Amoda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction. It found that the claim had been presented outside the statutory time limit under s111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time.
The Tribunal also dismissed the Claimant's disability discrimination claims for lack of jurisdiction. It found that the claims had been presented outside the statutory time limit under s123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, with no written reasons included in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction because it was presented outside the statutory time limit under s111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996, and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction because the claims were presented outside the statutory time limit under s123 Equality Act 2010, and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
- reasonably practicable
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.