Case 3323772/2017 · Employment Tribunal

In person v Respondent — 2018

Case reference: 3323772/2017
Decision date: 8 November 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Mr SG

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a public preliminary hearing on 8 November 2018 before Employment Judge Vowles sitting alone, the tribunal heard evidence from Mr S Wedlock and submissions from LHR Airports Limited. The claimant applied to amend his ET1 to add complaints of disability discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal. The tribunal refused the application, finding that it was not just and equitable to permit those amendments because the complaints had not been pleaded in the ET1 presented on 15 March 2017 and were now out of time.

By agreement of the parties, the claims listed to proceed to the full merits hearing were confined to wrongful dismissal and breach of contract. The wrongful dismissal claim was for 3 months notice pay of £11,900.79 under clause 21 of the contract of employment, and the breach of contract claim was for a company bonus of £4,174.43 under the Management Incentive Scheme. The respondent contended that the claimant was summarily dismissed and was not entitled to notice pay or the bonus payment. The case was listed for a one day full merits hearing on 9 August 2019.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Application to amend the ET1 to add disability discrimination was refused as not just and equitable; the complaint had not been pleaded in the ET1 presented on 15 March 2017 and was out of time.	Other	Disability	—
Unfair dismissal	Application to amend the ET1 to add automatically unfair dismissal was refused as not just and equitable; the complaint had not been pleaded in the ET1 presented on 15 March 2017 and was out of time.	Other	—	—

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.