Case 2405632/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Wallace v Victoria (Baveria) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2405632/2022
- Decision date
- 10 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Wallace
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Wallace brought claims of unfair dismissal and age discrimination against Victoria (Baveria) Limited. The tribunal struck out both claims because they were presented out of time. For the unfair dismissal claim, applying s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been made within the statutory time limit and that it was not brought within a reasonable further period.
For the age discrimination claim, applying s.123 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal found it would not be just and equitable in all the circumstances to extend time to allow the claim to proceed. The judgment records no substantive liability findings on the merits and no remedy award, because the tribunal decided it had no jurisdiction to determine either claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction because the unfair dismissal claim was brought outside the statutory time limit; it found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and that it was not brought within a reasonable further period. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction because the age discrimination claim was brought outside the statutory time limit and it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- 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.