Case 3313796/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr T Nicholas v Menzies Aviation (UK) Limited — 2023

Case reference: 3313796/2022
Decision date: 29 November 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
Venue: Reading

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr T Nicholas

Respondent

Menzies Aviation (UK) Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claimant's complaints of whistleblowing detriment and holiday pay. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have started those complaints within the required time limit, so the time limit could not be extended.

The judgment records that the claimant's complaints of direct race discrimination and victimisation will proceed to a final hearing. No remedy or monetary award is recorded in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the whistleblowing detriment complaint because it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have started the claim within the required time limit and time could not be extended.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the holiday pay complaint because it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have started the claim within the required time limit and time could not be extended.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	The judgment states that the complaint of direct race discrimination will proceed to a final hearing; no final outcome is recorded in this judgment.	Other	Race	—
Victimisation	The judgment states that the complaint of victimisation will proceed to a final hearing; no final outcome is recorded in this judgment.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.