Case 2202739/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Lawal v UKActive — 2021
- Case reference
- 2202739/2020
- Decision date
- 29 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin Appearances
- Venue
- by CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Lawal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr A Lawal's unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time. Applying section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it found that it had been reasonably practicable for that claim to have been presented in time, and the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The same judgment records a procedural ruling on the direct age discrimination and race discrimination claims. Under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal decided that it was just and equitable to extend time for those claims. This order does not record any substantive liability finding or any monetary award in relation to either discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim was brought out of time. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time and dismissed it under section 111 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal determined under section 123 Equality Act 2010 that it was just and equitable to extend time for this claim. No merits finding is recorded in this order. | Other | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal determined under section 123 Equality Act 2010 that it was just and equitable to extend time for this claim. No merits finding is recorded in this order. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
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.