Case 4116781/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Stokes v Represented by: In person Whitbread Group plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 4116781/2018
- Decision date
- 11 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Stokes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Glasgow on 8 February 2019, Employment Judge M Whitcombe recorded by consent an amendment to the respondent's name to Whitbread Group plc trading as Costa Coffee. The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim had been presented outside the time limit in section 111(2) and (2A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and dismissed that claim because it had no jurisdiction to hear it.
The claimant had also clarified direct discrimination claims because of sex and sexual orientation. The tribunal recorded that those claims potentially amounted to conduct extending over a period ending no earlier than 30 April 2018, but by consent the jurisdictional time points arising in those claims could not be determined at the preliminary hearing and would remain in issue at the final hearing. No further case management was possible at that hearing, and a telephone preliminary hearing for case management was fixed for 5 March 2019. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented outside the period in section 111(2) and (2A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct discrimination claim as clarified by the claimant; the tribunal said the jurisdictional time points could not be determined at this preliminary hearing and would remain in issue at the final hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Direct discrimination claim as clarified by the claimant; the tribunal said the jurisdictional time points could not be determined at this preliminary hearing and would remain in issue at the final hearing. | Other | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 111(2) and (2A) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.