Case 2305055/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Adams v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2305055/2021
- Decision date
- 28 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Adams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing. After he emailed to say he was having technical issues, the Tribunal adjourned to allow him an opportunity to join, but he did not do so. The Tribunal proceeded to hear the respondent's application and gave written reasons.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had been on notice of the respondent's time-limit point since the response was presented and had also been notified directly by the Tribunal that the point would be determined at an open hearing. The claimant had not provided a case management agenda, had not replied to the respondent, and had not explained the late presentation of the claim.
The alleged events were said to have ended by 5 May 2021. Based on the dates of Acas early conciliation, the Tribunal found that the time limit expired on 2 September 2021, but the claim was not presented until 5 October 2021. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's submissions on the strictness of time limits and concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time under the Equality Act 2010. The claim was therefore out of time, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, and the claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The claim was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction. The Tribunal also stated that the age discrimination claim had no reasonable prospects of success because there was no reference to the allegation in the particulars of claim. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction. The Tribunal also stated that the disability discrimination claim had no reasonable prospects of success because there was no reference to the allegation in the particulars of claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The claim was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction. The Tribunal stated that, in respect of race, the claimant had done no more than refer to his race and that of his colleagues. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.123(1)(b) EQA
- just and equitable to extend time
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre 2003 IRLR 343
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.