Case 3325374/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Self (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 3325374/2017
- Decision date
- 17 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr G Self (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on 17 December 2018 before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto in Reading. The tribunal ordered that the Management Committee of Rowhill School be added as a second respondent to the proceedings.
The tribunal then dealt with time limit issues. It found that the claimants' complaints had been presented outside the normal time limit, but that it was not reasonably practicable for them to present the complaints within that time. It also found that the complaints had been presented within a reasonable time.
In the alternative, the tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time for presenting the complaints. On that basis, the Employment Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider the claimants' complaints.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal added the Management Committee of Rowhill School as a second respondent and held that the complaints, although presented outside the ordinary time limit, could proceed because it was not reasonably practicable to present them in time and they were presented within a reasonable time; alternatively, it was just and equitable to extend time. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not 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.