Case 2301905/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Arnold, Consultant For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2301905/2019
- Decision date
- 24 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyde Dated
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr M Arnold, Consultant For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge C Hyde sitting alone on 3 February 2020. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was out of time and that there were no adequate grounds to extend time, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also dealt with Equality Act claims of sex discrimination and disability discrimination. It accepted that those claims had been presented out of time, and again found that there were no adequate grounds to extend time, so both discrimination claims were dismissed on limitation grounds.
No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed at the preliminary stage. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as presented out of time; the tribunal found no adequate grounds to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Accepted to have been presented out of time; the tribunal found no adequate grounds to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Accepted to have been presented out of time; the tribunal found no adequate grounds to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.