Case 2402752/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kyle Race v Manchester Airport plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402752/2021
- Decision date
- 1 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wheat REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kyle Race
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined at a preliminary hearing whether the unfair dismissal claim had been presented within the applicable time limit and, if not, whether it had not been reasonably practicable to present it in time.
It found that the claim had not been presented in time. The claimant did not show that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented on time, and the tribunal stated that this was in accordance with section 111(2)(a) and (b) and section 207(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed it. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | At a preliminary hearing on time limits, the tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time, the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time, and the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to determine it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Whether it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within time
- s.111(2)(a) and (b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.