Case 2201865/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A McNally v One Housing Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201865/2022
- Decision date
- 8 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A McNally
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public preliminary hearing on 4 August 2022 before Employment Judge A M Snelson, sitting alone, Mr McNally appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by counsel. The hearing dealt with time-based jurisdictional issues arising from the Claimant's whistleblowing and race claims.
The Tribunal held that the complaint of detrimental treatment on protected disclosure grounds was presented outside the three-month time limit. It found that it had been reasonably practicable to present that complaint in time and therefore concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider it, so the whistleblowing claim was dismissed.
The Tribunal also considered a race-related harassment claim based on events on 8 October 2021. It held that it was just and equitable to extend time for that claim, so it remained within jurisdiction. The two direct race discrimination claims identified earlier were left for decision on time issues at the final hearing, and the order directed further case management including amended grounds of resistance.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detrimental treatment on protected disclosure grounds was held to be presented out of time; the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment claim based on events on 8 October 2021 was held to be in time under a just and equitable extension; merits were not decided at this hearing. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- 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.