Case 3331742/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Alexander Bulley v London Underground Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 3331742/2018
- Decision date
- 12 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chudleigh
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alexander Bulley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing in Reading on 6 March 2019, Employment Judge Chudleigh, sitting alone, dealt with limitation issues affecting the claimant's direct discrimination complaint and complaint of unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal held that it would be just and equitable to hear the direct discrimination complaint under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 notwithstanding that it had been presented out of time.
The respondent's applications to strike out the direct discrimination claim and/or for a deposit order were dismissed. The judgment does not determine the merits of that discrimination complaint; it records only that the claim was allowed to proceed despite the time point.
The tribunal also found that the unlawful deduction of wages complaint was presented out of time within the meaning of s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it would have been reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. No monetary remedy was assessed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held it would be just and equitable to hear the direct discrimination complaint notwithstanding that it was out of time, and dismissed the respondent's strike out and deposit order applications. The extracted text does not repeat the protected characteristic, but the case listing identifies disability discrimination. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint was presented out of time under s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it would have been reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 just and equitable test
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996 reasonably practicable test
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.