Case 2600836/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Wynter v Caterpillar UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600836/2023
- Decision date
- 28 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Welch
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Wynter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge K Welch sitting alone on 28 February 2024. The claimant, Mr T Wynter, was represented by his partner and non-legal representative; the respondent was Caterpillar UK Limited. The tribunal dealt with claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment also records that race discrimination relating to the claimant’s dismissal was struck out on the same basis.
The tribunal further found that the race discrimination claims were presented outside the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. Those race discrimination claims were therefore dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the race discrimination claims were presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. The judgment also records that race discrimination relating to dismissal was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) for no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
- just and equitable extension of time
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.