Case 3305589/2024 · Employment Tribunal
A Amesu (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305589/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge W Anderson Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
A Amesu (counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal decided that Cranswick Country Foods PLC was the claimant's employer at the relevant times, and dismissed the claim against Cranswick PLC. It accepted that the claimant had believed Cranswick PLC was his employer and had good reason for that belief, including that Cranswick PLC paid him.
The constructive unfair dismissal complaint was presented outside the applicable time limit, but the tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it in time and that it was then presented within a further reasonable period. The protected disclosure detriment complaint was dismissed because the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have filed it within the limitation period.
The disability discrimination complaint was also presented outside the applicable time limit, but the tribunal found it just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal did not decide whether older discrimination allegations were in time or whether there was a continuing course of conduct, leaving those issues for the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal decided the constructive unfair dismissal complaint was out of time but that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time, and that it had been presented within a further reasonable period. The complaint will therefore proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of protected disclosure detriment was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal decided the disability discrimination complaint was out of time but that it was just and equitable to extend time. The complaint will therefore proceed. The tribunal did not decide whether older allegations were in time or formed part of a continuing course of conduct. | Other | Disability | — |
| Other | The claim against Cranswick PLC, the first respondent, was dismissed after the tribunal found that Cranswick Country Foods PLC, the second respondent, was the claimant's employer at the relevant times. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] ICR 1157
- Ter-berg v Simply Smile [2023] EAT 2
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.