Case 3205082/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Considine v Quattro Plant Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205082/2022
- Decision date
- 10 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrington Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Considine
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary judgment dated 10 March 2023 before Employment Judge Harrington at East London Hearing Centre, heard by CVP. The claimant, Mr J Considine, was in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim had been presented in time and that it should continue to a final hearing. The judgment did not determine the substantive merits of the unfair dismissal complaint.
The respondent's application in relation to part of the claimant's disability discrimination claim, seeking strike out or a deposit order, was refused. The judgment does not record any substantive liability findings on the discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was presented in time and would continue to a final hearing. No merits decision was made in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The respondent's application for part of the disability discrimination claim to be struck out or made subject to a deposit order was refused. No merits decision was made in this judgment. | Other | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.