Case 2405278/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Mellon v Swissport GB Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2405278/2019
- Decision date
- 15 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Mellon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. The claim had been presented after the statutory time limit and the tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present it before the time limit expired.
The tribunal held that it did have jurisdiction to consider disability discrimination complaints so far as they related to any alleged act of discrimination done, or treated as done, on 8 January 2019. Although the claim was also presented after the statutory time limit for those complaints, the tribunal found it just and equitable to extend time by three days.
For alleged acts of discrimination before 8 January 2019, the tribunal left two issues to be determined at the final hearing: whether any such act formed part of an act extending over a period ending on 8 January 2019, and if not, whether a further just and equitable extension of time should be granted.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint because it was presented after the statutory time limit and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The preliminary hearing determined jurisdiction only. The tribunal held it had jurisdiction for disability discrimination complaints relating to alleged acts done, or treated as done, on 8 January 2019. Issues about alleged earlier acts were left for the final hearing. | Other | 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.