Case 3200012/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Routledge v Waltham Forest London Borough Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200012/2023
- Decision date
- 23 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Volkmer Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Routledge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because it had not been presented within the applicable time limit. It found that it was reasonably practicable to do so within time, so the limitation point was fatal to the claim.
The tribunal also found that, at the relevant times, Mr Routledge was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010. On that basis, the complaint of discrimination arising from disability was dismissed, and the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was also dismissed.
No remedy was awarded. The judgment records only dismissal of the claims and does not contain any split of compensation or separate monetary findings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability; the tribunal found that at the relevant times the claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments; dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.