Case 2400150/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Armstrong v The Guinness Partnership Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400150/2020
- Decision date
- 20 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Armstrong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote preliminary hearing on 10 July 2020 before Employment Judge Phil Allen sitting alone, the tribunal struck out Mr B Armstrong's unfair dismissal claim because it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The hearing was conducted fully by video on CVP because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The claimant's sexual orientation discrimination claim was dismissed following his withdrawal of that claim. The judgment then dealt with the sex discrimination and age discrimination claims, which had been confirmed at the preliminary hearing.
On those two claims, the tribunal held that they were presented in such period as it thought just and equitable under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, so they were able to proceed. The judgment records no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal of the claim. | Withdrawn | Sexual orientation | — |
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary limitation ruling only; the tribunal held the claim could proceed because it had been presented within a period the tribunal considered just and equitable under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. | Other | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | Preliminary limitation ruling only; the tribunal held the claim could proceed because it had been presented within a period the tribunal considered just and equitable under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
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.