Case 1800693/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. E Sampson v A G Parfett and Sons Limited HELD AT: Leeds Employment Tribunal ( By CVP) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800693/2024
- Decision date
- 21 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. E Sampson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Leeds by CVP before Employment Judge Buckley on 18 June 2024, dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because it was not presented within the applicable time limit. It found that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, but also that the claim was not presented within a further reasonable period.
The disability discrimination complaint was also dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal found that it had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend that time limit. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented outside the applicable time limit; tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable to present in time, and it was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Presented outside the applicable time limit; tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. | 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.