Case 2203669/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Lazar v One Housing Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203669/2021
- Decision date
- 2 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Lazar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Lazar brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against One Housing Group Limited. The hearing was listed before Employment Judge John Crosfill at East London Hearing Centre, via CVP, on 31 January 2022, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
The tribunal did not determine the merits of either claim. It held that the unfair dismissal complaint was presented after the time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 had expired, that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time and/or that he had not presented it within a reasonable time afterwards, and therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear that complaint.
The tribunal also held that the disability discrimination claims were presented after the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 had expired and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. On that basis, the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear those complaints. The judgment ends by stating that the claimant's claims were accordingly struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was presented after the section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 time limit, that it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented in time and/or that it was not presented within a reasonable time thereafter, and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held the disability discrimination claims were presented after the section 123 Equality Act 2010 time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear those complaints. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.