Case 3311171/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A. Malcolm v Felixstowe Dock & Railway Company PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311171/2022
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H. Mason Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A. Malcolm
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Malcolm presented his claim on 4 September 2022 after the tribunal found the limitation date had been 23 August 2022. The claims were unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against Felixstowe Dock & Railway Company. The hearing on 15 May 2023 was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge H. Mason to determine whether the claims should be struck out or dismissed because they were out of time.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied the statutory test in section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. It accepted that the claimant had poor mental health, but found he was aware that an employment tribunal claim was an option, had access to internal processes, ACAS, and CAB, and had in fact taken several steps before the limitation date including a grievance, an appeal, and a DSAR request. The tribunal found that his mental health did not prevent him from presenting the claim in time and held that it was reasonably practicable to do so.
For the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal applied the section 123 Equality Act 2010 just and equitable test. It took into account the same chronology and the parties' submissions on prejudice. It accepted that the claimant would be prejudiced if denied the chance to pursue the claim, but also accepted the respondent's submission that some prejudice would arise from delay in witness availability and recollection. The tribunal concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
As a result, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear either claim and dismissed the proceedings. No remedy or compensation was awarded because the case was decided on limitation grounds without reaching the merits.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a public preliminary hearing because the claim was presented 12 days after the limitation date and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed at a public preliminary hearing because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
- London Underground Ltd v Noel
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Wells Cathedral School Ltd v Souter
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.