Case 1802299/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B. Haigh v Brook St (UK) Ltd. TELEPHONE PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 1802299/2020
- Decision date
- 2 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rogerson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B. Haigh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a telephone preliminary hearing on 1 July 2020 before Employment Judge Rogerson sitting alone, the tribunal dealt with limitation and withdrawal issues only. It extended the time for presenting the claimant's unfair constructive dismissal complaint to 15 April 2020, being satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented earlier.
The tribunal also recorded that the complaint of age/sex discrimination was withdrawn and dismissed. The written judgment contains no merits findings on the constructive dismissal complaint and no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal extended the time for presenting the complaint of unfair constructive dismissal to 15 April 2020, being satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented earlier. The judgment does not determine the merits of the dismissal complaint. | Other | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The complaint of age/sex discrimination was withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of age/sex discrimination was withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- not reasonably practicable
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.