Case 3300154/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ben Ellis v UK Mission Enterprise Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300154/2023
- Decision date
- 13 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ben Ellis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mr Ben Ellis’s unfair dismissal claim, identified in the judgment as a constructive dismissal claim, because it was presented after the statutory time limit. The judge held that the limit in section 111(2) and (2A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applied and that it could not be extended because it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within time.
The written judgment separately records that the claimant’s disability discrimination complaint proceeds. No liability decision, findings on the merits, or remedy were made on that complaint in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal (constructive dismissal) claim as presented out of time. It held the statutory time limit in section 111(2) and (2A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 could not be extended because it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment states that the claimant’s complaint of disability discrimination proceeds. No merits outcome for that complaint is recorded in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111(2) and (2A) ERA 1996
- 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.