Case 2205623/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Galea v British Telecommunications plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 2205623/2018
- Decision date
- 26 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Galea
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing concerned whether the claimant's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims should be allowed to proceed despite being presented outside the primary time limits. The tribunal found that the claimant's employment terminated on 28 February 2018, following his choice to take pay in lieu of notice, and did not accept that retaining work equipment or later pension correspondence meant he reasonably believed employment continued beyond that date.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time. It also found that, even if that were wrong, the claimant had been advised by the end of May 2018 and by ACAS on 28 June 2018 that time limits were an issue, but did not act quickly enough before presenting the claim on 10 August 2018. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
For discrimination, the tribunal found the section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim relating to dismissal was out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, taking into account prejudice, recollection evidence, and the apparent prospects of that dismissal-related claim. However, it extended time for two sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 claims concerning alleged PCPs connected with medical retirement and information about that process, finding that those claims were freestanding, had some potential merit, and depended less on recollection evidence.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at preliminary hearing because the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and, alternatively, it was not presented within a reasonable time thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim relating to dismissal was out of time and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claims under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 concerning reasonable adjustments were not finally determined; time was extended to allow them to proceed. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Luton Borough Council v Haq
- Section 123(1) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre trading as Leisurelink
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- Section 33 Limitation Act 1980
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble and Others
- Lupetti v Wrens Old House
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.