Case 2403660/2024 · Employment Tribunal
J N Alexis v Pinnacle B2B Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 2403660/2024
- Decision date
- 30 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J N Alexis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Batten in Manchester on 27 May 2025. The claimant, J N Alexis, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The Tribunal dealt only with time limit issues for the unfair dismissal and race discrimination complaints.
The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed because it was not presented within the time limit in section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented in time.
The race discrimination complaint was also dismissed as out of time under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was not presented within the time limit in section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was reasonably practicable to do so within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint was not presented within the time limit in section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
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.