Case 1601212/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. Hughes v Wrexham County Borough Council — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601212/2018
- Decision date
- 4 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A. Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan sitting alone at Mold on 2 March 2020. The tribunal dealt only with limitation and jurisdiction. It recorded that the claimant was represented by Mr D. Potts and the respondent by Mr K. Ali, Counsel.
The claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint was found to have been presented out of time. The tribunal held that it would have been reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, and therefore the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it. That claim was dismissed.
The claimant’s disability discrimination claims were also found to have been presented out of time. The tribunal held that it would not be just and equitable to extend time to the date of actual presentation, so those claims were dismissed as well. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time. The tribunal found it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the unfair dismissal claim in time, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Presented out of time. The tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time to the date of actual presentation. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.