Case 2601057/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Phillips v Mr Stuart Heron and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601057/2022
- Decision date
- 12 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr R Phillips
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to decide whether the unfair dismissal complaint had been presented in time. The tribunal recorded that there was also a time limit issue for the race discrimination complaint, but that issue was left for the full merits hearing.
The tribunal found that the claim form was correctly presented on 20 April 2022, within the agreed time limit expiring on 21 April 2022. It concluded that the form had been returned because the second respondent's postcode was missing, but that the rules did not require a postcode and the rejection was an administrative act.
The unfair dismissal claim was therefore allowed to proceed. The tribunal also stated that, if it was wrong about the presentation date, it would have accepted that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time because the delay resulted from an administrative error and no fault of the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing decision only: the tribunal decided the unfair dismissal claim was presented in time and allowed it to proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the issue of time limits for the race discrimination complaint would be dealt with at the full merits hearing. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- not reasonably practicable
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.