Case 1601327/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Adam Painter v Partspeed Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601327/2020
- Decision date
- 2 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Webb Representation
- Venue
- by video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Adam Painter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Adam Painter brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Partspeed Limited. The case was heard by Employment Judge N Webb by video on 30 November 2020. The tribunal did not determine the merits of any dismissal complaint because it first considered whether the claim had been presented in time.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was brought outside the stipulated time limit. It found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time, and that it was not presented within such further time as was considered reasonable.
On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal found the claim was presented outside the stipulated time limit, that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time, and that it was not presented within such further time as was considered reasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.