Case 3205272/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. Curtis v Aldi Stores Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205272/2021
- Decision date
- 7 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A. Curtis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant did not attend and was not represented at the remote hearing. The Respondent was represented by a solicitor.
The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims because they had been presented over two years outside the statutory time limits. In the absence of any application by the Claimant to extend time, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear them.
On the information available, the Tribunal was satisfied that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present the unfair dismissal claim in time. It also found that it would not be just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination claim, noting that a fair trial was no longer possible.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented over two years outside the statutory time limit; no application to extend time was made, and the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal also found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the claim was presented over two years outside the statutory time limit; no application to extend time was made, and the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal also found it would not be just and equitable to extend time, and that a fair trial was no longer possible. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- statutory time limits
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.