Case 3309759/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Neary v Mr D Barnard trading as Acorn Preservation Company — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309759/2022
- Decision date
- 27 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Caiden
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr N Boustred, Mr C Surrey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Neary
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Caiden sat with Mr N Boustred and Mr C Surrey at Watford on 3-4 July 2023. The Claimant was Mr S Neary and the Respondent was Mr D Barnard trading as Acorn Preservation Company. The Claimant was in person and the Respondent was represented by Mr P Collins, Senior Litigation Consultant.
The written judgment records a unanimous decision that all of the Claimant's complaints were dismissed because they had been presented out of time. The document does not set out further findings on the underlying merits of the complaints, and no liability findings were recorded beyond the time limit point.
No remedy was awarded. The judgment also states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written record does not set out the individual allegations; the tribunal dismissed all of the Claimant's complaints because they were presented out of time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.