Case 1601317/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. Mair v Stena Line PTE Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601317/2018
- Decision date
- 17 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A. Mair
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing at Mold before Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan on 15 January 2020. The tribunal decided that Mr A. Mair had presented his claim out of time. It found that it was reasonably practicable for him to have presented the claim in time, and that in any event the claim was not presented within a reasonable time after he said it became reasonably practicable.
On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the claim and held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no request for written reasons was made within the stated period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held the claim was presented out of time, that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it in time, and that it was not in any event presented within a reasonable time after it became reasonably practicable. The tribunal therefore said it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable test
- reasonable time
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.