Case 1802707/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Crisp v Highways England Company Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1802707/2020
- Decision date
- 7 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Crisp
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Shepherd on 2 October 2020. Mr Crisp, who represented himself, had been employed by Highways England Company Limited from 4 May 2004. He said that various events from 2011 to September 2019 amounted to emotional bullying, constructive dismissal, breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, and disability discrimination. The tribunal identified the issues as whether time should be extended for the unfair dismissal complaint under s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether time should be extended for the discrimination complaint under s.123 Equality Act 2010.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant was aware of his right to complain and should have investigated the time limits. He had suggested constructive dismissal at a sickness review meeting on 8 November 2017 and had the benefit of trade union support and solicitor advice. The tribunal found he was informed of the relevant time limits by the Citizens Advice Bureau and/or ACAS in mid-January 2020, but did not contact ACAS to start early conciliation until 17 February 2020. It held that the time limit had expired by 30 January 2020, that there was no medical evidence of incapacity, and that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. It also found that, even if that were wrong, the claim was not presented within a reasonable time thereafter.
On disability discrimination, the claimant said the last discriminatory act was in July 2019. The tribunal therefore treated the limitation period as expiring at the latest on 31 October 2019. Although the claimant had CAB advice and had been told about the time limit in mid-January 2020, he did not present the claim until 20 May 2020. The tribunal found he was capable of raising a grievance and dealing with other issues with the respondent, albeit with help from his brother, and there was no medical evidence of incapacity. It was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore dismissed both the unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the tribunal found the claim was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present it earlier; no extension of time was granted under s.111 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the disability discrimination complaint was presented after the limitation period and the tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time under s.123 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Limited v Norton EAT 175/90
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- 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.