Case 1806597/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Cocks v Wm Morrisons Supermarkets Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806597/2019
- Decision date
- 27 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Cocks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered limitation issues for the claimant's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination complaints.
The Tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint was presented outside the time limit under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present that complaint in time, and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it.
The Tribunal also held that the disability discrimination complaint was presented outside the time limit under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that it was just and equitable to extend time, so jurisdiction existed for the complaints brought under the Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint was presented outside the section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal found the disability discrimination complaint was presented outside the section 123 Equality Act 2010 time limit, but extended time on a just and equitable basis. The merits of the discrimination complaint were not determined in this preliminary judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- section 123 of the 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.