Case 2200608/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Wise v H M Revenue & Customs — 2025
- Case reference
- 2200608/2024
- Decision date
- 22 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Wise
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied to strike out the whole claim on the basis that it was entirely out of time. The tribunal recorded that ACAS was notified on 4 December 2023, the certificate was issued on 20 December 2023, and the claim was presented on 18 January 2024, making the claims at least 12 weeks and 3 days out of time by reference to the latest date for notifying ACAS.
The claimant believed time ran from the appeal outcome on 12 September 2023 and did not realise he was out of time. The tribunal found the respondent had not suffered prejudice from the lateness, was already aware of the complaints through the appeal and grievance, and there was no evidence of lost documents or unavailable witnesses.
The tribunal considered it just and equitable to extend time for incidents on 24 July 2023, including the decision refusing the claimant's application for home working. The claims were therefore not struck out as out of time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary judgment only. The tribunal decided the claims were not struck out as out of time and extended time for incidents on 24 July 2023, including refusal of the claimant's application for home working. The substantive discrimination claim was not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.