Case 4110383/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D McGlynn v City Facilities Management (UK) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4110383/2019
- Decision date
- 4 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D McGlynn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal decided jurisdiction and limitation issues. It found that the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented within that period. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out.
The Tribunal also found that the harassment related to disability complaint was presented outside the section 123 Equality Act 2010 time limit, and that it had not been brought within such other period as the Tribunal considered just and equitable. That harassment complaint was struck out.
The Tribunal found that the complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments were outside the primary section 123 Equality Act 2010 time limit, but had been brought within such other period as it considered just and equitable. Those complaints were allowed to proceed to hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was not presented within the section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it within that period, so it had no jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | The Tribunal found the harassment related to disability complaint was not presented within the section 123 Equality Act 2010 time limit and was not brought within such other period as it considered just and equitable. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The direct disability discrimination complaint was found to be outside the primary time limit, but within such other period as the Tribunal considered just and equitable, and was allowed to proceed to hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The discrimination arising from disability complaint was found to be outside the primary time limit, but within such other period as the Tribunal considered just and equitable, and was allowed to proceed to hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint was found to be outside the primary time limit, but within such other period as the Tribunal considered just and equitable, and was allowed to proceed to hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
- 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.