Case 3306424/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Barrett v And LHR Airports Limited Held by CVP on 10 February 2022 — 2022
- Case reference
- 3306424/2021
- Decision date
- 17 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kurrein Statement
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Barrett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Barrett had worked for LHR Airports Limited in technical roles from 1984 until his effective date of termination on 30 November 2020. The tribunal recorded that, after discussion at the hearing, the unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims were dismissed on withdrawal. It also noted an unless order made on 21 October 2021 because the unfair dismissal claim form had not alleged a dismissal.
The tribunal found that the remaining monetary claims were out of time. Early conciliation ran from 5 January 2021 to 5 February 2021, but because both dates fell within the primary limitation period the last date for presentation remained 29 March 2021. The claim was not presented until 27 April 2021. The claimant gave no evidence that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time; the judge did not accept stress as sufficient explanation.
In relation to disability, the judge explained the statutory definition to the claimant and the claimant said he had not ticked the disability box because he lacked evidence. The impairment relied on was Covid, contracted on 30 March 2020, but he returned to work remotely before 15 April 2020 and was present in the workplace on occasions before furlough in June 2020. The claim was then withdrawn.
For the financial claims, the tribunal accepted that the dispute arose from the respondent's voluntary severance exercise after a severe fall in passenger numbers caused by the Covid epidemic. The claimant signed an acceptance document on 19 November 2020, the respondent accepted it on 20 November 2020, and the claimant signed a deed of waiver on 22 November 2020. The judge held that the claims were contractual in nature, outwith the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal, and in any event had no reasonable prospect of success. Although the deed did not comply with the waiver provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the judge considered it highly likely that the claimant would be estopped from seeking to vary the severance agreement.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on withdrawal after the claimant confirmed he wished to withdraw. The judge had also discussed an unless order made on 21 October 2021 because the claim form did not allege a dismissal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed on withdrawal after the judge explained the statutory definition of disability. The claimant said he had not ticked the disability box because he did not have evidence of that; the impairment relied on was Covid, contracted on 30 March 2020, with a return to remote work before 15 April 2020 and later attendance in the workplace before furlough in June 2020. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the tribunal held the claim was out of time and, in any event, outwith the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal and had no reasonable prospect of success. The judge treated the dispute as arising from the voluntary severance agreement and the deed of waiver. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the tribunal held the claim was out of time and, in any event, outwith the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal and had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant said he had been paid in excess of £6,000 in accrued and untaken holiday pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the tribunal held the claim was out of time and, in any event, outwith the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal and had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant said his severance payment was miscalculated because it did not take account of additional payments and accrued toil of over 500 hours. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.