Case 1601055/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Cule v Monmouthshire County Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 1601055/2024
- Decision date
- 10 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd-Lawrie Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Cule
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing at Cardiff Employment Tribunal on 9 December 2024, before Employment Judge Lloyd-Lawrie, the Tribunal considered Mr C Cule’s claim against Monmouthshire County Council. The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable to do so, so the claim for unfair dismissal, described as constructive unfair dismissal, was dismissed.
The Tribunal also recorded that the Claimant’s redundancy pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The Claimant’s discrimination claim was likewise dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claim was for unfair dismissal (constructive unfair dismissal) and that it was not presented within the applicable time limit because it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the redundancy pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal, but it does not specify the protected characteristic or the legal basis of the discrimination claim in the extracted text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.