Case 2214601/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Paul Raymond Longmead v Govia Thameslink Railway FAO: Chris Mclennan — 2024
- Case reference
- 2214601/2023
- Decision date
- 10 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Paul Raymond Longmead
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Paul Raymond Longmead, brought a claim against Govia Thameslink Railway FAO: Chris Mclennan. The only claim recorded in the written judgment was a claim for unfavourable treatment under regulation 5 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000.
Employment Judge A.M.S. Green, sitting at London Central by CVP on 10 January 2024, held that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. The reason given was that the claim was filed out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time.
No merits finding or monetary award is recorded in the written judgment. The decision therefore disposes of the claim on a limitation/jurisdiction basis only.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim because it was filed out of time and it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 5 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
- just and equitable to extend time
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.