Case 2500752/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Toner v Jesmond Dene House Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500752/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Toner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting by video before Employment Judge Arullendran on 25 March 2025, determined two preliminary time-limit issues and did not go on to decide the substantive merits of the dismissal complaints. The claimant, Mr D Toner, brought an unfair dismissal claim against Jesmond Dene House Limited.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because it had not been presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, so there was no basis on which to allow the late presentation.
The claimant also brought a discriminatory dismissal claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. That claim was likewise dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. No financial award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was found to have been reasonably practicable to do so within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment describes this as a discriminatory dismissal claim pursuant to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. It was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- section 15 of the Equality Act 2010
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.