Case 1601146/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Clark v Sodexo Limited Heard: by video — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601146/2020
- Decision date
- 2 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Clark
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting by video on 25 November 2020 before Employment Judge S Jenkins, dealt only with limitation issues. It held that Mr R Clark's unfair dismissal claim against Sodexo Limited was presented outside the stipulated time limit and that it had been reasonably practical for the claim to have been brought in time, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also held that the claims of discrimination on the grounds of disability and age were presented outside the time limit. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend time for either discrimination claim, and both were dismissed. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the stipulated time limit and it had been reasonably practical for it to have been brought in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the discrimination claim was brought outside the stipulated time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed because the discrimination claim was brought outside the stipulated time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
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.