Case 2409517/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Roberts v Lancashire County Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 2409517/2020
- Decision date
- 2 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, and withdrew his application for a redundancy payment. It was agreed that the unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims were lodged outside the relevant time limits. The claimant relied on health issues and the impact of the pandemic as reasons for the delay.
For unfair dismissal, the Tribunal accepted that the claimant had suffered with depression from July 2019 and had childcare responsibilities during part of each week. It found, however, that he had been able to function at work, prepare a relatively complex redundancy appeal document, apply for jobs and attend interviews. The Tribunal concluded that it had been reasonably practicable for him to bring the unfair dismissal complaint in time, so the claim was dismissed.
For the disability discrimination claim, the Tribunal considered whether to extend time on a just and equitable basis. It identified some practical prejudice to the respondent because oral evidence would be needed about interview panels' knowledge and perceptions, and memories would have faded. Taking the reasons for delay, the length of delay, prejudice and finality in the round, the Tribunal decided not to extend time and dismissed the disability discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was presented out of time and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The clarified disability discrimination complaints were failures to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. They were brought out of time and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant withdrew the application for a redundancy payment at the preliminary hearing; the judgment records that it was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372
- Marks and Spencer Plc v Williams-Ryan [2005] ICR 1293
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre (T/A Leisure Link) [2003] IRLR 434
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan [2018] EWCA Civ 640
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.