Case 3331409/2018 · Employment Tribunal
R Williams v John Lewis plc and 1 other — 2018
- Case reference
- 3331409/2018
- Decision date
- 17 July 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
3 namedClaimant
R Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing about limitation. The Tribunal refused the claimant's late application to amend the claim to add direct sexual orientation discrimination, finding that the issues had already been narrowed at an earlier case management hearing where the claimant was represented and that allowing the amendment at this stage would not be proportionate or in the interests of justice.
The Tribunal accepted that the claimant had HIV and that low CD4 counts caused him understandable anguish and reluctance to go out. However, in the absence of medical or documentary evidence, it was not satisfied that his health substantially affected his ability to seek advice, use online or telephone resources, or present tribunal proceedings during the relevant period.
For the Equality Act harassment and victimisation complaints and the section 43B public interest disclosure complaint, the Tribunal found that the latest relevant date was when the claimant should have received Orange Square's dismissal letter dated 26 March 2018, by no later than 28 March 2018. The ET1 was presented on 17 July 2018, and ACAS early conciliation was not begun until after the primary limitation period had already expired.
The Tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the whistleblowing complaint in time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for the Equality Act complaints. Those claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction, John Lewis was discharged from the proceedings, and the automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A ERA 1996 against Orange Square remained to be decided at a full merits hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the Equality Act 2010 complaints were presented out of time and there were no just and equitable grounds to extend time; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the Equality Act 2010 complaints were presented out of time and there were no just and equitable grounds to extend time; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of public interest disclosure under section 43B ERA 1996 was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. The separate automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A ERA 1996 remained live for a full merits hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The automatic unfair dismissal complaint contrary to section 103A ERA 1996 against the Second Respondent was not determined in this judgment and was left to be decided at a full merits hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- balance of probabilities
- section 48(3) ERA 1996
- section 111(2) ERA 1996
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943 CA
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119 CA
- Adsa Stores Ltd v Kauser EAT 0165/07
- Shultz v Esso [1999] IRLR 488 CA
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] ICR 54 CA
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1979] ICR 52 CA
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble [1997] IRLR 336
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones [2008] IRLR 128
- Chohan v Derby Law Centre [2004] UKEAT/0851/03/ILB
- Virdi v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & another [2006] UKEAT/0373/06/RN
- Miller & others v Ministry of Justice and others [2016] UKEAT/0003/15/LA
- Trevelyan's (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton ICR 488
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.