Case 3315924/2019 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance or participation For the v Mr N Ackroyd, Managing Director — 2020
- Case reference
- 3315924/2019
- Decision date
- 5 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance or participation For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend or participate in the hearing listed for 31 July 2020. The tribunal noted that no application for an adjournment had been made, and there had been no material from the claimant since the earlier case management hearing on 28 February 2020. A tribunal staff member telephoned the claimant twice on the morning of the hearing without success.
On the papers before it, the tribunal concluded that the claim had been presented out of time. It had previously set out its analysis of the limitation issue in the order of 28 February 2020, and there was no material before the tribunal to challenge that analysis or to show that it was just and equitable to extend time. The claim was therefore struck out and the listed hearing dates were cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Struck out because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Struck out because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.