Case 2301539/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hedges (claimant’s brother) For the v Mr S Wyeth - counsel — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301539/2021
- Decision date
- 8 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Hedges (claimant’s brother) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Wright on 8 July 2022. The tribunal recorded that the claim against Mr D Hedges was dismissed upon withdrawal because it had been accepted in error.
The claimant's Equality Act 2010 discrimination claim, which on the case listing was a disability discrimination claim, was dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend the time for presenting that claim.
The unfair dismissal claim was also dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the unfair dismissal claim within the three-month time limit, and therefore the claim could not proceed out of time.
No compensation or other remedy was awarded, because both substantive claims were dismissed at the preliminary stage.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed at the preliminary hearing because it was not just and equitable to extend time to present the claim under the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because it was found reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal claim within three months, so the time limit was not extended. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable extension of time
- reasonably practicable test
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.