Case 2602536/2020 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2020

Case reference: 2602536/2020
Decision date: 29 September 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Blackwell
Venue: Nottingham

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was an open preliminary hearing conducted by Cloud Video Platform before Employment Judge Blackwell sitting alone. Mr Josephs joined only by telephone and without visual connection. The tribunal accepted that a remote hearing had been requested by Mr Josephs, but decided that it should not proceed in those circumstances because the case involved jurisdictional issues and the parties would not be on an equal footing if the hearing continued in that form.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	No final merits determination was made at this hearing. The tribunal listed jurisdictional issues for a later preliminary hearing, including whether Mr Josephs had sufficient continuity of employment under section 108(1) ERA 1996 and whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under section 111 ERA 1996.	Other	—	—
Race discrimination	No final merits determination was made at this hearing. The tribunal listed for later determination whether it had jurisdiction under section 123 Equality Act 2010, including whether the race discrimination claim was presented out of time and, if so, whether it would be just and equitable to extend time.	Other	Race	—

Legal tests applied

5 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.