Case 3200101/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Bishop v JB Riney & Co Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200101/2020
- Decision date
- 4 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Bishop
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case remotely by audio on 4 June 2020 before Employment Judge Reid. The claimant, Mr M Bishop, appeared in person and the respondent, JB Riney & Co Limited, was represented by Ms Reynolds of Eversheds Sutherland. The tribunal recorded that a face-to-face hearing was not practicable and that the issues could be determined remotely.
The tribunal decided that the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was out of time because it had been presented beyond the three-month time limit in s111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also decided not to extend time under s111(2)(b). It reached the same conclusion on the race discrimination claim, finding that it was presented outside the three-month limit in s123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and declining to extend time under s123(1)(b).
Because both claims were out of time and time was not extended, both claims were dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claim was brought beyond the three-month time limit in s111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 and decided not to extend time under s111(2)(b). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the race discrimination claim was brought beyond the three-month time limit in s123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and decided not to extend time under s123(1)(b). | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.