Case 2301058/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Lingard v Jardox Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301058/2021
- Decision date
- 12 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Lingard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr David Lingard's complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed because it had been presented out of time. The judgment does not record any substantive determination on the merits of the dismissal claim, only that the limitation issue was fatal to that complaint.
The tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time for the presentation of the disability discrimination complaints. Those complaints were therefore allowed to proceed to a hearing to be arranged. The judgment states that the dismissal itself was the only alleged act of discrimination that was in time, and it does not decide the discrimination allegations on their merits.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was presented out of time and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time for the presentation of the disability discrimination complaints, which were to proceed to a hearing to be arranged. The dismissal itself was identified as the only alleged act of discrimination that was in time; no merits decision on discrimination was made in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable extension of 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.