Case 3324276/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Crisp v Aspire Academies Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 3324276/2019
- Decision date
- 4 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Crisp
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Reading on 4 February 2020, Employment Judge Hawksworth sitting alone held that Mr M Crisp's complaints of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages, and breach of contract were all presented out of time. The tribunal found that it was not reasonably practicable for those claims to have been presented within the primary time limit, but that they were not presented within such further period as the tribunal considered reasonable. On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear those claims.
The judgment records that the claimant's disability discrimination complaint proceeded. No finding on liability, and no remedy, is recorded in this decision for that complaint. The written record is limited to the time-limit ruling on the three employment claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable to present within the primary time limit, but it was not presented within such further period as the tribunal considered reasonable, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable to present within the primary time limit, but it was not presented within such further period as the tribunal considered reasonable, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable to present within the primary time limit, but it was not presented within such further period as the tribunal considered reasonable, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- reasonable period
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.