Case 2202816/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms Paine, Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202816/2019
- Decision date
- 9 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Egbis worked as a Mail Room Operator for Grosvenor Cleaning Services Limited from 3 November 2018 to 30 January 2019 and was dismissed by redundancy. He said the dismissal was unfair and that he had been discriminated against because of disability, referring to lower back pain and a knee injury and, in particular, his inability to lift heavy pallets. The reasons also mention additional claims for harassment, victimisation and breach of contract, but note that the ET1 was confused and inadequately particularised.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's time-limit objection. It recorded that ACAS was first contacted on 25 June 2019 and the tribunal claim was presented on 25 July 2019. On the tribunal's chronology, the unfair dismissal and Equality Act claims were already out of time, and the breach of contract claim was also outside the relevant limitation period. The claimant provided no written medical evidence or other material explanation for the delay, did not appeal the dismissal, and took no effective steps between December 2018 and June 2019 despite having access to CAB, ACAS and online information.
Applying s.111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and s.123 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that time should not be extended. It therefore rejected the substantive claims for lack of jurisdiction and struck them out as out of time. Subject to that, the respondent had accepted an outstanding contractual obligation to pay five weeks' notice pay, and the tribunal ordered payment of £1,986 less tax, national insurance and other statutory deductions.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal ordered payment of £1,986 less tax and national insurance as outstanding five weeks' notice pay. The reasons say the respondent had accepted a contractual obligation to pay it; the judgment also contains an internal date inconsistency, referring in one place to termination on 30 January 2019 and in another to redundancy effective 30 November 2018. | Upheld | — | £1,986 |
| Unfair dismissal | Rejected as out of time; the tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint should have been presented by 28 February 2019 and that no extension of time was justified. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant alleged disability-related discrimination linked to lower back pain and a knee injury, including selection for redundancy and possible failure to make reasonable adjustments, but the claim was not properly particularised and was out of time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Mentioned in the reasons as one of the less clearly particularised claims; dismissed as out of time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Mentioned in the reasons as one of the less clearly particularised claims; dismissed as out of time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,986
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 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.