Case 2304852/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Isaac Andrew v London Borough of Lewisham OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304852/2020
- Decision date
- 22 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Isaac Andrew
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on limitation and jurisdiction. The Claimant had been dismissed with immediate effect on 7 November 2019 and presented his claims on 21 July 2020, after the tribunal accepted that the primary limitation period expired on 6 February 2020. The tribunal therefore considered whether the unfair dismissal claim could proceed under s.111(2) ERA 1996. It referred to Wall’s Meat Co Ltd v Khan and Porter v Bandridge Ltd, including the principle that the question is whether the claimant ought to have known of the time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time because the Claimant knew there were time limits, had access to the internet and assistance from his partner, had contacted ACAS in December 2019, and could have sought advice earlier. It also found that waiting for the appeal outcome and then waiting further after the appeal was rejected did not make late presentation reasonable.
The tribunal also addressed a race discrimination complaint arising from the treatment of a comparator, Mr Urbaniak. After the Claimant was taken through the differences between his own circumstances and Mr Urbaniak’s, he said he could see the position and no longer maintained the claim. The race discrimination claim was therefore dismissed on withdrawal. No monetary remedy was awarded on either claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The claim was presented on 21 July 2020, about five months after the primary limitation date of 6 February 2020, and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time and, in any event, not within such further period as was reasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | During the hearing, after evidence about the proposed comparator Mr Urbaniak, the Claimant said he no longer maintained the race discrimination claim and withdrew it; the tribunal dismissed it on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- Wall’s Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd
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.