Case 3303766/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3303766/2019
- Decision date
- 20 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge McNeill QC heard the case in Watford on 19 November 2019. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The judgment records that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because it was presented out of time. The tribunal found that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the claim within the three-month primary time limit and also noted that, in any event, the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
The claimant's victimisation claim and discrimination claim based on sexual orientation were also dismissed on time-bar grounds. The tribunal held that those claims were presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented out of time; the tribunal held it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it within the three-month primary time limit and, in any event, the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed because it was presented out of time and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Dismissed because it was presented out of time and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- reasonably practicable
- three month primary time limit
- two years qualifying service
- 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.