Case 1601804/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Smith v Radical Materials Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601804/2021
- Decision date
- 27 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Cawthray Members
- Panel members
- Mrs L Bishop, Ms M Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Smith brought claims against Radical Materials Limited for discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal heard the case in Cardiff on 22 to 24 June 2022 before Employment Judge G Cawthray with members Mrs L Bishop and Ms M Lewis. The tribunal's judgment was unanimous.
The tribunal dismissed the claims arising from disability relating to working from home and being required to work on fragrance projects. It found those claims were not presented in time and decided it was not just or equitable to extend time. The dismissal was therefore on limitation grounds rather than on the merits of those complaints.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim of discrimination arising from disability in relation to the claimant's dismissal. On that issue, it found the claim was not well founded. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claims of discrimination arising from disability in relation to working from home and being required to work on fragrance projects were found to be out of time, and the tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim of discrimination arising from disability in relation to the claimant's dismissal was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.