Case 2206162/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Josef, Solicitor For the v Mr S Harte, Solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206162/2021
- Decision date
- 24 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Josef, Solicitor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant sought to add a complaint of disability discrimination by amendment, but the tribunal recorded that the claim form did not contain such a complaint. The application for leave to amend was refused and dismissed, so no disability discrimination claim proceeded on the merits.
The tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the complaint was presented after the end of the three-month period beginning with the effective date of termination and that it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented before that period expired, applying section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Because jurisdiction was lacking, the proceedings were dismissed in their entirety. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim form did not contain a disability discrimination complaint. The claimant's application for leave to amend to add one failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction because the complaint was presented after the three-month time limit and it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time under section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.