Case 3311357/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Rodrigues v Dnata Catering UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311357/2024
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Rodrigues
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was presented on 5 November 2024, four days after the applicable deadline of 1 November 2024. It was not satisfied that ill-health or the internal appeal process made it not reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time, noting the absence of medical evidence and that the claimant had engaged with ACAS and attended his appeal hearing.
The tribunal also found that the victimisation complaint was out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It relied on the same timing reasons and also found that the claimant had not identified a protected act within the meaning of section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, so the victimisation claim could not succeed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was dismissed because it was presented four days out of time and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The complaint was dismissed because it was presented out of time, the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, and no protected act had been identified. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser UKEAT/0165/07
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- Rule 3 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
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.