Case 3332853/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Connelly v H.P.A.S. Limited T/A Safestyle UK — 2019
- Case reference
- 3332853/2018
- Decision date
- 16 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Connelly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 16 August 2019, the Employment Tribunal at Bury St Edmunds considered Mr T Connelly's race and disability discrimination claims against H.P.A.S. Limited T/A Safestyle UK. Employment Judge M Warren held that both claims were out of time.
The tribunal further held that it was not just and equitable to extend time. On that basis, both claims were struck out for want of jurisdiction.
The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No remedy was awarded because the claims did not proceed beyond the jurisdictional ruling.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the race discrimination claim was out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the claim was struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held the disability discrimination claim was out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the claim was struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.