Case 2214618/2023 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2214618/2023
- Decision date
- 11 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central on 3 April 2024 before Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The judgment was given orally, with the written record sent to the parties on 11 April 2024.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because it had not been presented within the applicable time limit. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, so the statutory time limit was not extended.
The tribunal also dismissed the disability discrimination complaint, which was pleaded as a failure to make reasonable adjustments, because it too was presented out of time. The tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit for that claim.
As a result, the claimant's entire claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.