Case 4105630/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person 20 John Lewis Plc v Represented by Ms L Gould,25 Counsel. — 2021
- Case reference
- 4105630/2020
- Decision date
- 26 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Young
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person 20 John Lewis Plc
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing by CVP on 4 May 2021, Employment Judge J Young held that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction under section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 to hear the unfair dismissal complaint, including the protected disclosure aspect. The claimant was dismissed on 9 March 2020, the three-month limit expired on 17 July 2020 after early conciliation, and the ET1 was not presented until 20 October 2020. The tribunal also held that the race and disability discrimination complaints, including the harassment allegations referred to in the reasons, were out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that the claimant knew of the three-month time limit shortly after dismissal when he contacted ACAS and that he had union assistance. It noted that he pursued an appeal, made a subject access request, received the appeal outcome on 15 May 2020, and later made a further early conciliation notification in May 2020. The judge accepted that the claimant had depression and was taking medication, but found the evidence did not show a deterioration in his mental state that made it not reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal claim in time.
On the discrimination claims, the tribunal applied the just and equitable discretion under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 and refused to extend time. It relied on the claimant's ability to take steps during the relevant period, including preparing his appeal statement and seeking legal advice around the end of July 2020, and noted that some of the allegations related to incidents in 2017/2018. No merits findings were made and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint was presented out of time under section 111 ERA 1996. It found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three-month limit and, in any event, the later delay to 20 October 2020 was not reasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant said the unfair dismissal complaint included a protected disclosure allegation. The tribunal treated that complaint as part of the dismissal claims and held it out of time for the same section 111 ERA 1996 reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination claim was held to be out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination claim was held to be out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment refers to harassment allegations as part of the discrimination issues and says they appeared to relate to incidents in 2017/2018. Those allegations were treated as time-barred and no extension of time was granted. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable test
- Lowri Beck Services v Brophy [2009] EWCA Civ 2490
- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, t/a Leisure Link [2003] IRLR 434
- Adedji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 23
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.