Case 2600401/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Clark, Lay Representative. For the 1st v Mr Warnes, Consultant. For the 2nd Respondent: Mr Warren-Jones, Solicitor. — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600401/2024
- Decision date
- 3 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Clark
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Clark, Lay Representative. For the 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing in Nottingham on 3 July 2024, Employment Judge R Clark, sitting alone, dismissed the claimants' claims against both respondents for lack of jurisdiction.
For the first claimant, the tribunal found that the claims were presented out of time. It accepted that it was not reasonably practicable for them to be presented within time, but found that they were not then presented within a further reasonable period.
For the second claimant, the tribunal found that the claims were also presented out of time, but in circumstances where it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal found the first claimant's claims were presented out of time, that it was not reasonably practicable for them to be presented within time, but that they were not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal found the second claimant's claims were presented out of time when it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time. | 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.