Case 3305448/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mrs C Hitchen, Consultant — 2019
- Case reference
- 3305448/2018
- Decision date
- 5 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clarke QC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr K Banham, brought claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination against Hughes of Beaconsfield Ltd. The hearing took place at Watford before Employment Judge Clarke QC on 31 January 2019, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mrs C Hitchen, Consultant.
The tribunal held that both claims were presented outside the primary limitation period applicable to each claim. In relation to unfair dismissal, it found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim within the primary limitation period. In relation to age discrimination, it held that it was not just and equitable to extend time for presentation of the claim.
Both claims were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The written record does not record any remedy award, and no monetary sum was ordered.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented outside the primary limitation period. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the unfair dismissal claim within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Presented outside the primary limitation period. The tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time for presentation of the age discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Age | — |
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.