Case 1805368/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Coates, Solicitor v Cummins Turbo Technologies UK Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805368/2019
- Decision date
- 16 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Coates, Solicitor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Bywater was dismissed on 7 November 2017 after a long period of sickness absence following a hip replacement and occupational health assessments. He issued tribunal proceedings on 11 October 2019, almost two years later. The tribunal did not determine the substantive merits of the dismissal or discrimination complaints because both were rejected on limitation grounds.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that it had been reasonably practicable to present a claim by 6 February 2018. It relied on the fact that Mr Bywater and his solicitors already knew the basis of the dispute in late 2017, including the challenge to the medical evidence and the fairness of the dismissal process. The later disclosure of the 1 December 2017 email did not, in the tribunal's view, prevent a claim being brought in time.
For disability discrimination, the tribunal accepted that Mr Bywater was a disabled person and that Cummins Turbo Technologies UK Ltd knew that. The complaint covered direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect discrimination, and a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal treated 8 December 2017 as the end of the period complained of and said the primary limitation period expired on 7 March 2018, so the claim was about 19 months late.
In deciding whether to extend time, the tribunal took into account the respondent's failure to disclose the 1 December 2017 email promptly and noted that Dr Dann had strongly recommended a second occupational health opinion. It nonetheless held that the substance of that communication was already apparent from Dr Dann's 5 May 2018 letter and from the solicitor's June 2018 correspondence, and that the claimant could have pursued disclosure within tribunal proceedings earlier. The tribunal also noted the claimant had legal advice, spent time overseas, and had advanced a reasonable-adjustments case that was inconsistent with his earlier position that he could not return to work.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time under section 111 ERA 1996. The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within the primary three-month period, and that later disclosure of the 1 December 2017 email did not explain the delay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint, pleaded under sections 13, 15, 19, 20 and 21 EqA 2010, was dismissed as out of time under section 123 EqA 2010. The tribunal accepted the claimant was disabled and that the respondent knew it, but held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- s.123(1) EqA 2010
- just and equitable
- conduct extending over a period
- Pnaiser v NHS England
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.