Case 3318928/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Corbin v Emcor Group (UK) plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 3318928/2019
- Decision date
- 21 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Bloom Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing by CVP on 11 September 2020, the tribunal dealt with limitation issues and case management. The claimant had resigned on 2 January 2019, which the tribunal accepted as the effective date of termination. ACAS was notified on 13 March 2019 and the early conciliation certificate was issued on 13 April 2019, so the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims had to be presented by 13 May 2019.
The tribunal found that the claimant's representative attempted to send the ET1 by email on 15 May 2019, which was not a permitted method of presentation, and that the form was only received by post on 22 May 2019. Applying the not reasonably practicable test under s.111 ERA 1996 and referring to Dedman v British Building and Engineering, the tribunal held that the delay arose from the representative's error and misunderstanding of the presentation rules, but that this did not make it not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. The constructive unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were therefore dismissed.
The direct age discrimination, direct race discrimination and harassment claims were also out of time on the face of the ET1, on the tribunal's finding that the last complained-of acts ended in May 2018. However, after considering the claimant's stress and anxiety, medical evidence, the absence of particular prejudice to the respondent, and the broad just and equitable discretion under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010, the tribunal extended time for those claims. It also refused the respondent's strike-out and deposit application because the factual allegations required a full liability hearing, which was listed for Reading in March 2021.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal following resignation on 2 January 2019. The tribunal found the ET1 was formally presented on 22 May 2019, nine days outside the statutory time limit, and declined to extend time under s.111 ERA 1996 because it was satisfied that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The breach of contract or wrongful dismissal claim was treated as out of time for the same reasons as the unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal held that the claim should have been presented by 13 May 2019 and dismissed it because it was not presented in time and time was not extended. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination was out of time on the face of the ET1, on the tribunal's finding that the last complained-of acts ended in May 2018. Time was extended as just and equitable under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010, and the claim was allowed to proceed to the listed liability hearing. | Other | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was also out of time on the face of the ET1, but the tribunal extended time as just and equitable under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. The claim was not struck out or made subject to a deposit order and was allowed to proceed. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The unlawful harassment claim was treated as out of time on the face of the ET1, but the tribunal extended time as just and equitable and refused the respondent's strike-out and deposit application. The claim was listed to proceed to the full liability hearing. |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering (1974) ICR 53
- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre (2003) IRLR 434
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.