Case 2415269/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr LM Fatima Dos Martires Ximenes v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415269/2021
- Decision date
- 7 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr LM Fatima Dos Martires Ximenes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed on 26 August 2021. ACAS Early Conciliation commenced on 1 December 2021 and the unfair dismissal complaint was received on 17 December 2021. The tribunal found that the complaint was not presented within three months of the effective date of termination, that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time, and that it was not presented within a further reasonable period.
The alleged act of race discrimination took place on 23 July 2021. The race discrimination claim was received on 17 December 2021, after ACAS Early Conciliation commenced on 1 December 2021. The tribunal found the complaint was out of time and, in all the circumstances, did not consider it just and equitable to extend the time limit.
The claimant applied during oral closing submissions for an adjournment to seek legal advice. That application was refused.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it within the three-month period and it was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination complaint was dismissed as out of time. The tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time to 17 December 2021. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.