Case 3307236/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Whitehouse v CPLS Mind — 2025
- Case reference
- 3307236/2023
- Decision date
- 8 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Whitehouse
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the complaint of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief was dismissed upon withdrawal. No substantive findings were made on that complaint in the written record beyond the fact of withdrawal.
The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed because it had not been presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time, so the limitation point was determinative.
The sex discrimination and disability discrimination complaints were also dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal found that those complaints were not presented within the applicable time limits and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment says the complaint of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief was 'dismissed upon withdrawal'. I have treated this as withdrawn for extraction purposes. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.