Case 2201945/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Brady v Bechtel Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201945/2021
- Decision date
- 19 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Brady
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Brady brought unfair dismissal and Equality Act 2010 claims against Bechtel Limited. On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that it was presented outside the primary time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It further found that Mr Brady had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, or that it was presented within such further period as was reasonable. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint and dismissed it.
The Equality Act claims were also found to have been presented outside the primary time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. However, the tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time, so those claims were allowed to proceed to a hearing. The written judgment did not determine the merits of the Equality Act claims and did not record any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lateness: the tribunal found the claim was not presented within the primary time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time or within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment refers collectively to Equality Act 2010 claims; the age discrimination classification follows the case context/listing categories supplied with the case. The tribunal extended time under section 123 EqA 2010 and the claim was to proceed to a hearing; no merits finding was made in this judgment. | Other | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers collectively to Equality Act 2010 claims; the disability discrimination classification follows the case context/listing categories supplied with the case. The tribunal extended time under section 123 EqA 2010 and the claim was to proceed to a hearing; no merits finding was made in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment refers collectively to Equality Act 2010 claims; the sex discrimination classification follows the case context/listing categories supplied with the case. The tribunal extended time under section 123 EqA 2010 and the claim was to proceed to a hearing; no merits finding was made in this judgment. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
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.