Case 2301827/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Waters v Sky UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301827/2022
- Decision date
- 26 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Waters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered limitation issues in Mr Waters' claims against Sky UK Limited. The complaint of constructive unfair dismissal had not been presented within the applicable time limit, and the tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. That complaint was dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the complaints of sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination were not presented within the applicable time limit. It concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time for those complaints, and they were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal and dismisses it as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- 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.