Case 2413427/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Armstrong v One Fylde Heard by Cloud video — 2021
- Case reference
- 2413427/2020
- Decision date
- 2 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Armstrong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a Cloud video hearing on 9 July 2021 before Employment Judge Reed, the tribunal determined preliminary limitation issues in Mr I Armstrong's claims against One Fylde. It held that the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages had been presented in time and could proceed.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It found that the claim had been presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time.
The tribunal also held that the disability discrimination claims had been presented out of time, but that it was just and equitable for them to proceed. The written record was sent to the parties on 2 August 2021. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claim was presented in time and may proceed. This judgment did not determine the merits of the claim. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination claims were presented out of time, but the tribunal held it was just and equitable that they should proceed. This judgment did not determine the merits of those claims. | 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.