Case 2601493/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Ashman v Linear Insulation Ltd PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 2601493/2019
- Decision date
- 10 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Ashman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Jeram sitting alone considered Mr J Ashman's claims against Linear Insulation Ltd. The tribunal dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal complaint because it had no reasonable prospect of success. It also held that there was no jurisdiction to hear an ordinary unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had not completed 2 years' qualifying service.
The claimant's race discrimination claims were also dismissed. The tribunal found that those claims had been brought more than three months after the date of the last act to which the complaints related, and it decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time. No financial remedy was awarded. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that no further written reasons would be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the automatic unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of success. It also held that it had no jurisdiction to hear an ordinary unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have 2 years' qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination claims were presented more than three months after the date of the last act complained of. The tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- 2 years’ qualifying service
- more than three months after the date of the last act
- just and equitable to extend 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.