Case 1807637/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Donegan v Asda Stores Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1807637/2019
- Decision date
- 1 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Donegan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because it was not presented in time. The judgment states that it had been reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time and that it was not presented within a further reasonable period.
The judgment records that the remaining complaints were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. No remedy was awarded, and the written judgment does not provide further reasons beyond noting that oral reasons had been given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was dismissed because it was not presented in time, despite it being reasonably practicable to do so, and was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers only to 'remaining complaints' being dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant; this claim type is identified from the gov.uk listing category. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers only to 'remaining complaints' being dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant; this claim type is identified from the gov.uk listing category. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment refers only to 'remaining complaints' being dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant; this claim type is identified from the gov.uk listing category. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
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.