Case 1807594/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Litigant in person v Centrica Storage Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1807594/2019
- Decision date
- 9 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Litigant in person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's employment ended on 3 December 2018. He had appealed against dismissal before the effective date of termination, raised grievances that were answered on 4 December 2018, and contacted ACAS on 3 December 2018. An ACAS certificate issued on 17 January 2019, and the tribunal recorded that the last date for presenting a claim, allowing for any extension, was 16 April 2019. Wilkin Chapman sent the first claim form by email to the tribunal on 12 April 2019, but the judge held that email was not one of the prescribed methods of presenting an employment tribunal claim.
The tribunal held that the first claim had not been validly presented, but it found that it was not reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal complaint to be presented within the primary time limit. The claimant had reasonably believed that the first claim had been lodged, had received an acknowledgement email, had used solicitors, and had no reason to know of the problem until he contacted the tribunal on 21 December 2019. After being told that the first claim would have been rejected, he re-presented an identical claim on 24 December 2019, which the tribunal found to be within a reasonable further period.
For the disability discrimination complaints, the tribunal treated the allegations as a continuing act connected with the redundancy process and dismissal. The complaints comprised direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and victimisation. It accepted that the discrimination claim was about eight months late, but held that it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The judge relied on the documented nature of the redundancy process, the continuing availability of key decision-makers, the prompt action taken once the error was discovered, and the overall fairness of allowing the claims to proceed. These were preliminary jurisdiction findings only; the merits of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination were not decided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary time-limit ruling only; the tribunal held that the claim was out of time but that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the primary limit, so time was extended under section 111(2) ERA 1996. The merits were not decided. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary time-limit ruling only; this covered the claimant's disability discrimination complaints, including direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and victimisation. The tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The merits were not decided. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Sealy v Consignia Plc
- Software Box Ltd v Gannon
- Adams v British Telecommunications Plc
- Lawrence v Yesmar Restaurants t/a McDonalds
- Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Marley (UK) Ltd v Anderson
- Theobald v Royal Bank of Scotland PLC
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Afolabi v Southwark LBC
- DPP v Marshall
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.