Case 2305667/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305667/2021
- Decision date
- 11 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by video on 2 November 2022 before Employment Judge Corrigan sitting alone, with the claimant in person and the respondent represented by counsel. In the judgment dated 11 November 2022, the tribunal first addressed the discrimination claims and held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider them because they were submitted out of time. The tribunal also found that it was not just and equitable to extend time for those claims.
The tribunal then considered the unfair dismissal claim and held that it also fell outside the tribunal's jurisdiction because it was submitted out of time. Although the tribunal considered whether it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three-month time limit, it found that the claim was not submitted within a further reasonable period. All claims were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the discrimination claims were submitted out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the discrimination claims were submitted out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the unfair dismissal claim was submitted out of time. It considered whether it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three-month limit, but found it was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.