Case 2419694/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kris Armer v Home Office — 2022
- Case reference
- 2419694/2020
- Decision date
- 16 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr Hussain, Ms Eyre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kris Armer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the complaints of direct sex discrimination and harassment on the grounds of sex were presented out of time. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit, and accordingly held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear those complaints.
The tribunal found that the complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were not well founded. Both dismissal-related complaints were dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not set out further reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of direct sex discrimination was presented out of time and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment on the grounds of sex was presented out of time and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Other | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was found not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint was found not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.