Case 3302796/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Gibson v Busy Bees Nurseries Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3302796/2020
- Decision date
- 28 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Gibson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Gibson brought claims against Busy Bees Nurseries Limited for unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, and Equality Act 2010 claims. The hearing was held remotely by CVP before Employment Judge Postle on 4 March 2021, and the written record was sent to the parties on 28 April 2021. The judgment did not determine the substantive merits of the complaints; it dealt with limitation and jurisdiction.
For the unfair dismissal and unpaid wages claims, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim within three months, so it had no jurisdiction to hear them. For the Equality Act 2010 claims, the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. All claims were therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to have issued the claim within 3 months and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this as a claim for unpaid wages. The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to have issued the claim within 3 months and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The extracted judgment refers generally to claims under the Equality Act 2010. Classification as disability discrimination follows the case listing category supplied in the case context. The tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- 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.