Case 1600674/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Weir v LET Alliance Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 1600674/2018
- Decision date
- 1 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dated
- Venue
- Mold
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Weir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Mold on 9 November 2018 before Employment Judge R F Powell. The claimant, Mr A Weir, did not attend and was not represented. The respondent was represented by Mr Evans, solicitor.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it found that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the claim. The reason given was that the claimant lacked the requisite period of continuous employment required by section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also dismissed the sex discrimination claim because it found that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the claim. It held that the claim had not been presented within the time limit set by sections 123 and 140B of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment refers to this as a claim of unlawful sex discrimination.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction because the claimant did not have the requisite period of continuous employment under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction because the sex discrimination claim was presented outside the time limit in sections 123 and 140B of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 123 and 140B Equality Act 2010
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.