Case 2406345/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Barrow Respondent Wardle Conservative Club Company Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406345/2022
- Decision date
- 11 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr P Barrow Respondent Wardle Conservative Club Company Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Manchester on 5 April 2023, before Employment Judge Batten sitting alone, the Tribunal dealt with limitation and withdrawal issues only. The complaint was brought by Mr P Barrow against Wardle Conservative Club Company Limited, with Mr Davis acting as litigation friend for the claimant and J Ratledge, Counsel, for the respondent.
The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal, breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages complaints because they had not been presented within the relevant time limit. It found that it was reasonably practicable for those claims to have been presented before the end of the three-month period, so the claims were out of time under s.111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The age discrimination complaint was also dismissed on limitation grounds. The Tribunal found it had not been presented in accordance with s.123 of the Equality Act 2010 and concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The disability discrimination complaint was dismissed because the claimant withdrew it. No remedy or compensation was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because it was not presented in accordance with s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996; the Tribunal was satisfied it was reasonably practicable to present the claim before the end of the three-month period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because it was not presented in accordance with s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996; the Tribunal was satisfied it was reasonably practicable to present the claim before the end of the three-month period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because it was not presented in accordance with s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996; the Tribunal was satisfied it was reasonably practicable to present the claim before the end of the three-month period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed because it was not presented in accordance with s.123 Equality Act 2010 and the Tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
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.