Case 2203850/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Clarke, counsel For the v Mr B Hodgson, solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203850/2019
- Decision date
- 9 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Clarke, counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had been employed as Head Chef from 24 June 2003 until his dismissal on 11 March 2019. The original claim included unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and holiday pay, but the holiday pay claim was withdrawn before this hearing. This was a preliminary hearing on limitation only: whether the unfair dismissal and Equality Act claims were out of time, and if so whether time should be extended.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted evidence that the claimant had significant mental health difficulties, including panic attacks, poor concentration and difficulty coping with stress, and found that those difficulties affected his ability to obtain advice and start proceedings. It found that he knew about time limits by August 2019 at the latest, but that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim by the expiry of the primary time limit on 10 June 2019. The claim form, presented on 6 October 2019 after ACAS early conciliation, was found to have been submitted within a reasonable period thereafter under s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996.
For the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal applied the just and equitable test under s.123(1) Equality Act 2010 and considered the length and reasons for the delay, prejudice, and potential merits. It held that the same illness-related reasons explained the delay, that the respondent still had records of the dismissal process and identified witnesses, and that the substantive merits could not be determined at that stage. Time was therefore extended and the disability discrimination claim was allowed to proceed. The tribunal noted that a previous deposit order of £250 had been made because of the limitation issue.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Limitation issue only. The tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal claim within the primary time limit and that the claim was submitted within a reasonable period thereafter. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Limitation issue only. The tribunal held that the disability discrimination claim was presented within such period as it considered just and equitable to allow. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Company Limited
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Bodha
- Ebay (UK) Ltd v Buzzeo
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Caston v Lincolnshire Police
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
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.