Case 2201790/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Ross v Maxwells Restaurants Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201790/2020
- Decision date
- 18 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wisby
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Ross
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented complaints of unfair dismissal and age discrimination on 29 March 2020. At the preliminary hearing the tribunal recorded that the effective date of termination was 16 November 2019 and that the last act of discrimination alleged was also on 16 November 2019, so the primary three-month limitation period for the Equality Act claim expired on 15 February 2020. The claimant had not entered early conciliation with ACAS until 24 March 2020.
The claimant withdrew his unfair dismissal claim because he did not have two years' continuous service. The age discrimination issue was therefore the only live claim considered at the hearing. The tribunal noted that the claimant had contacted ACAS on 25 November 2019, had also contacted two solicitors, and had raised and pursued a grievance and appeal with the respondent during the limitation period.
Although the claimant said that his mental health deteriorated in mid-February to early March 2020, the tribunal found that during the primary limitation period he was able to communicate with ACAS and solicitors, carry out internet searches, correspond with the respondent, and attend the respondent's premises on one occasion. It accepted that he was not capable of bringing a Tribunal claim in early March, but found that his inability arose after the primary time limit had already expired. The tribunal concluded that it would not be just and equitable to extend time under s.123 EqA 2010, and the remaining claims were struck out. The hearing listed for May 2021 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant withdrew this claim at the preliminary hearing on the basis that he did not have two years' continuous service. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held that the age discrimination complaints were presented out of time under s.123 EqA 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It found the claimant could have entered early conciliation and presented his claim within the primary limitation period, so the remaining claims were struck out. | Struck out | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of 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.