Case 2502152/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Sidney v Vertu Motors plc Heard in person at Newcastle — 2023

Case reference: 2502152/2022
Decision date: 16 May 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Aspden Appearances

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr D Sidney

Respondent

Vertu Motors plc Heard in person at Newcastle

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider two disability discrimination complaints: that Vertu Motors discriminated against Mr Sidney by dismissing him, and that it discriminated against him by rejecting his appeal against dismissal. It found that those claims were presented within a period it considered just and equitable under section 123(2) of the Equality Act 2010, and it did not consider that they had no, or little, reasonable prospect of success. They were therefore not struck out, and no deposit order was made in respect of them.

All other claims of discrimination, victimisation and harassment were struck out under rule 37 of the ET Rules 2013 because the tribunal considered they had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal added that, if they had not been struck out, they would have been dismissed because they were presented outside the period the tribunal considered just and equitable under section 123(2) of the Equality Act 2010.

The claimant’s notice pay claim, pleaded as a complaint that the respondent breached his contract of employment by dismissing him without notice, was dismissed for want of jurisdiction under Article 7(c) of the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994. This judgment did not record any monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Complaint that the respondent discriminated against the claimant by dismissing him. The tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider the claim as presented within a period it considered just and equitable, and it was not struck out in this preliminary judgment; no merits determination was made.	Other	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Complaint that the respondent discriminated against the claimant by rejecting his appeal against dismissal. The tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider the claim as presented within a period it considered just and equitable, and it was not struck out in this preliminary judgment; no merits determination was made.	Other	Disability	—
Other	All other claims of discrimination, victimisation or harassment were struck out under rule 37 of the ET Rules 2013 for having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal said that, if they had not been struck out, they would have been dismissed as out of time under s.123(2) Equality Act 2010.	Struck out	—	—
Breach of contract	Claim for notice pay, pleaded as dismissal without notice, was dismissed because the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider it under Article 7(c) of the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.