Case 1809760/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Rullion Ltd and E.ON UK plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 1809760/2024
- Decision date
- 29 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered time limit and jurisdiction issues in claims brought by Mr R Gilbert against Rullion Limited and E.ON UK Plc. The ordinary unfair dismissal complaint and the protected disclosure unfair dismissal complaint against the first respondent were both found to have been presented outside the statutory time limit when it was reasonably practicable to present them in time, so the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider them.
The direct disability discrimination complaint against the first respondent and the harassment complaint against the first respondent were also presented outside the limitation period, but the Tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time. The direct disability discrimination and harassment complaints against the second respondent were out of time and the Tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it had no jurisdiction to consider those complaints.
The Tribunal refused the first respondent's applications to strike out the surviving direct disability discrimination and harassment complaints, and refused its application for a deposit order, because it could not be said that those complaints had no reasonable prospect of success or little reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint against the first respondent was presented outside the limitation period when it was reasonably practicable to present it in time; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of unfair dismissal for having made a protected disclosure against the first respondent was presented outside the limitation period when it was reasonably practicable to present it in time; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The direct disability discrimination complaint against the first respondent was presented outside the limitation period, but the Tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time and refused the first respondent's strike-out and deposit applications. The claim was not finally determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The direct disability discrimination complaints against the second respondent were presented outside the limitation period; the Tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time and that it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaints. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment complaint against the first respondent was presented outside the limitation period, but the Tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time and refused the first respondent's strike-out and deposit applications. The claim was not finally determined. |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 13 and 39(2)(c) Equality Act 2010
- sections 13 and 39(2)(d) Equality Act 2010
- sections 26 and 40 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 40 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.