Case 3300232/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Wingrove v Rentokil Initial UK Ltd t/a Rentokil Pest Control — 2021
- Case reference
- 3300232/2020
- Decision date
- 27 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Wingrove
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Leeds on 25 May 2021, Employment Judge Parkin considered time-limit issues only. The claimant, Mr M Wingrove, brought claims against Rentokil Initial UK Ltd t/a Rentokil Pest Control including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim had been presented outside the statutory time limit. It stated that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, but the claim was nevertheless dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The tribunal also recorded that the disability discrimination claims were presented outside the statutory time limit. It found that it was not just and equitable for those claims to proceed, and dismissed them for want of jurisdiction. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claim was presented outside the statutory time limit and says it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, but the tribunal nevertheless dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the disability discrimination claims were presented outside the statutory time limit and that it was not just and equitable for them to proceed, so they were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- statutory time limit
- 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.