Case 2404604/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Thorndyke v Jaguar Land Rover Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2404604/2022
- Decision date
- 24 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Thorndyke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it was presented outside the applicable time limit. It found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, so there was no jurisdiction to hear it.
The Tribunal also dismissed the discrimination complaints. It found that all of those complaints were presented outside the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to allow them to proceed out of time. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, and the written judgment records that no request for written reasons had been made at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the applicable time limit and the Tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to the Claimant's complaints of discrimination being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because they were out of time and it was not just and equitable to permit them to proceed. The judgment text does not set out the individual discrimination allegations; disability is taken from the case listing category. | 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.