Case 2302238/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ian Sanford v Openreach Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302238/2021
- Decision date
- 10 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ian Sanford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant had not brought his unfair dismissal claim within the statutory time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable for him to do so. It therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim, which was dismissed.
For the disability discrimination claim, the Tribunal found that although it had also been brought outside the statutory time limit, it would be just and equitable to extend time for a section 15 claim relating to the claimant's dismissal only. The judgment did not determine the merits of that discrimination claim.
The Tribunal also found the respondent's Rule 37 application to strike out the pension-related unlawful deduction of wages / breach of contract claim and the redundancy payment claim was well-founded. Those claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was not brought within the statutory time limit and the Tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to do so, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal extended time as just and equitable only for a section 15 claim relating to dismissal. The merits of that claim were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent's Rule 37 strike-out application was well-founded for the pension-related unlawful deduction of wages / breach of contract claim, and the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to an unlawful deduction of wages claim / breach of contract claim relating to the claimant's pension; the Rule 37 strike-out application was well-founded and the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The respondent's Rule 37 strike-out application was well-founded for the claim for a redundancy payment, and that claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- section 15
- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.