Case 2402438/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Rogers v Saria Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402438/2022
- Decision date
- 7 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely on 23 September 2022 before Employment Judge Robinson sitting alone. The claimant did not attend. The respondent was represented by Ms K Hindmarch, Solicitor.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim and all disability discrimination claims were presented out of time. On the unfair dismissal claim, it found that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. On the disability discrimination claims, it found that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
In the claimant's absence, the tribunal recorded that the claims had not been actively pursued. It concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaints and dismissed them all.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal claim in time, and the claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | All disability discrimination claims were presented out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, and the claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- 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.