Case 1806338/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Finnegan v Provident Personal Credit Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806338/2020
- Decision date
- 13 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Finnegan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Evans on 13 January 2021, dealt with limitation issues on the Claimant's complaints. It held that the Claimant's unfair dismissal complaint had not been presented within the period allowed by section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it and the complaint was struck out.
The Tribunal also held that the Claimant's complaint of disability discrimination relating to his dismissal, and any disability discrimination complaint in respect of conduct extending over a period ending on the date of dismissal, had been presented within the period provided for by section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. No substantive finding on liability or remedy for that discrimination claim is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held the unfair dismissal complaint was not presented within the period provided for by section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and said it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal held that the disability discrimination complaint relating to dismissal, and any disability discrimination conduct extending over a period ending on the date of dismissal, was presented within time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. This judgment does not record any merits determination of that claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
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.