Case 3202428/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Goodliff v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202428/2018
- Decision date
- 10 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr R Stead, Mr P Pendle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Goodliff
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider whether the Claimant suffered alleged detriments during 2013 on the ground that he had previously made protected disclosures. Those complaints were issued outside the statutory time limits, and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have brought them within the applicable time limits.
The Tribunal also found that the Claimant's complaints failed on their merits. The complaints were accordingly dismissed. No remedy was awarded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider alleged 2013 protected disclosure detriments because they were out of time, and that the Claimant's complaints failed on their merits and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing category identifies unfair dismissal. The short judgment does not set out separate unfair dismissal reasoning, but states that the Claimant's complaints failed on their merits and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- statutory time limits
- 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.