Case 3300100/2025 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 3300100/2025
- Decision date
- 12 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was summarily dismissed in 2024 after nine years' continuous employment and brought complaints of unfair dismissal, holiday pay and disability discrimination. The Respondent resisted the claims, including on the basis that they had been presented out of time.
For unfair dismissal and holiday pay, the Tribunal considered the time-limit issues and determined that it was not reasonably practicable for those complaints to be presented in time, and that they were presented within a reasonable period thereafter. Those claims were therefore allowed to proceed.
For disability discrimination, the Tribunal treated the issue as one of whether the complaint had no reasonable prospect of being shown to be in time, or of time being extended on just and equitable grounds. The Tribunal declined to strike out that part of the claim, noting that the possible EqA 2010 complaints required clarification and that the relevant timing issues could not properly be resolved without further evidence and submissions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary judgment only. The Tribunal determined that it was not reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal complaint to be presented in time and that it was presented within a reasonable period thereafter, so the claim shall proceed. Merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Preliminary judgment only. The Tribunal determined that it was not reasonably practicable for the holiday pay complaint to be presented in time and that it was presented within a reasonable period thereafter, so the claim shall proceed. Merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary Rule 38/time-limit judgment only. The Tribunal determined that it could not be said that the Claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that his disability discrimination complaint was in time, alternatively that it would not be just and equitable to extend time if it was out of time. The exact EqA 2010 complaints remained to be clarified. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Dedman principle
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- s.97 ERA 1996
- Brown v Southall and Knight
- Gisda Cyf v Barrett
- Robinson v Bowskill
- Rule 38 of the 2024 Procedure Rules
- E v X, L and Z
- s.123(4) EqA 2010
- Cox v Adecco
- just and equitable extension of time
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.