Case 3301882/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nicholas Field-Johnson v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 3301882/2020
- Decision date
- 8 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Nicholas Field-Johnson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing heard at Reading on 5 January 2021, Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto sitting alone decided limitation issues only. The complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed because it had been presented outside the time limit for unfair dismissal claims.
The tribunal also recorded that the direct age discrimination complaint had been presented outside the time limit, but it was just and equitable to extend time for the presentation of that complaint. This judgment does not contain any substantive determination of the age discrimination allegations themselves.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at preliminary hearing because the claim was presented outside the time limit for unfair dismissal claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found the direct age discrimination complaint was presented outside the time limit, but extended time on a just and equitable basis. No merits decision is recorded in this judgment. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.