Case 3314952/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Price v Phyllis Court Members Club Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314952/2020
- Decision date
- 11 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Daniels
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Price
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 1 December 2022, heard by Employment Judge Daniels sitting alone by telephone, the tribunal considered whether the claimant’s claims could proceed despite being presented after the ordinary time limit, which had expired on 3 December 2020. The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim was out of time, but held that it had jurisdiction to hear it because it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to file in time and the claim was presented within a reasonable period afterwards.
The tribunal also found that the disability discrimination claim was out of time, but decided that it was just and equitable to extend time so that the claim could proceed in so far as it had already been pleaded, and subject to any other relevant orders. This was a preliminary ruling on timeliness only; the judgment does not contain any merits findings or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary timeliness/jurisdiction ruling only. The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it within the ordinary time limit, and it was filed within a reasonable period thereafter. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary timeliness ruling only. The tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis so the disability discrimination claim could proceed in so far as already pleaded and subject to any other relevant orders. | Other | 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.