Case 3306436/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr Mortin — 2021
- Case reference
- 3306436/2020
- Decision date
- 27 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett
- Venue
- Watford via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims were in time. The claimant said the last discriminatory act was an incident on 19 October 2019. He was dismissed by letter dated 19 January 2020, with the tribunal treating 22 January 2020 as the effective date of termination for limitation purposes. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant was in prison from 19 December 2019 to 9 March 2020 and later suffered Covid-19 illness and hospitalisation.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claim had to be presented by 21 April 2020. It accepted that imprisonment created some practical obstacles, but found that it was still reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his ET1 in time. The tribunal noted that he sought advice from the CAB immediately after release on 10 March 2020, knew of the three-month limit, had a month between release and Covid-19 illness, and could have submitted the claim earlier. It also found that, even if extension were considered, the claim was not presented within a reasonable further period.
On race discrimination, the tribunal found that the three-month time limit expired on 18 January 2020. Applying the factors in British Coal Corporation v Keeble and others, it held that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal took account of the length of delay, the likely prejudice to the respondent's evidence, the late disclosure of some documents, and the fact that the claimant had periods when he could have acted but did not. It noted that the claimant had approached the CAB on 10 March 2020, but did not start ACAS early conciliation until 29 June 2020 and did not submit the ET1 until 8 July 2020.
As a result, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear either claim and ordered both claims struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the unfair dismissal complaint was presented out of time under s.111(2) ERA 1996 and was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the race discrimination complaint was presented out of time under s.123(1) Equality Act 2010 and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble and others [1997] IRLR 336
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.