Case 1807151/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Adshead v Burngreave Building Company Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1807151/2019
- Decision date
- 8 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little
- Panel members
- Ms S D Sharma, Mr L Priestley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Adshead
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Sheffield on 2, 3 and 4 December 2020, heard Mr G Adshead's claims against Burngreave Building Company Limited. The panel comprised Employment Judge Little, Ms S D Sharma and Mr L Priestley. The respondent was represented by counsel and the claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination complaint based on an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments because it had been presented out of time. It held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain that complaint.
The tribunal also found that Mr Adshead had not been constructively dismissed, so the unfair dismissal complaint failed. The claim for unauthorised deduction from wages likewise failed because the tribunal found there had been no unauthorised deduction. The judgment records that the claim is dismissed in full and does not award any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was presented out of time; the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not constructively dismissed, so the unfair dismissal complaint failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found there was no unauthorised deduction from wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.