Case 3306383/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N McIntyre v Mitie Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306383/2024
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss N McIntyre
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered Mitie Limited's application to strike out the claim against it under Rule 38 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The second respondent, Vigilante Security, had not been given notice of the hearing, and the judgment states that the claim against Vigilante will proceed.
The tribunal found that the Employment Rights Act 1996 claims against Mitie were substantially out of time and that, on the claimant's partial explanation, there were no reasonable prospects of a tribunal finding that it had not been reasonably practicable for her to contact ACAS or present the claim in time. The tribunal also found that there were no reasonable prospects of the claimant showing that it was just and equitable to extend time for the Equality Act complaints, noting the length of delay, the lack of sufficient explanation, and the prejudice caused by late notification of imprecisely worded allegations.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim against Mitie. No remedy was awarded, and the judgment did not determine the continuing claim against Vigilante.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment refers to automatic unfair dismissal and other Employment Rights Act 1996 claims against Mitie being struck out because there was no reasonable prospect of showing it had not been reasonably practicable to present them in time. The visible PDF text is truncated, so the pleaded particulars are not fully available. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refers to a whistleblowing detriment claim based on the appeal and states that any Employment Rights Act 1996 claims should be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The visible PDF text is truncated. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the Equality Act complaints against Mitie were struck out because there were no reasonable prospects that the claimant would show it was just and equitable to extend time. The gov.uk listing identifies disability discrimination; the visible PDF text is truncated. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the Equality Act complaints against Mitie were struck out because there were no reasonable prospects that the claimant would show it was just and equitable to extend time. The gov.uk listing identifies sex discrimination; the visible PDF text is truncated. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Anyanwu v South Bank University
- Ezsias v N Glamorgan NHS Trust
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Services
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University v Morgan
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Marshall
- Baynton v South West Trains Ltd
- Rathakrishman v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd
- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan
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.