Mr M Hughes v Avanti HYLAS 2 Limited — 2023

Case reference: 6000007/2023
Decision date: 21 December 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Self Appearances

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Hughes

Respondent

Avanti HYLAS 2 Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Self on 22 September 2023. The tribunal dealt only with limitation and jurisdiction, not with the merits of the underlying allegations. It found that the unfair dismissal claim had been presented outside the statutory time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Claim was presented outside the statutory time limit in section 111 ERA 1996. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time, so it had no jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—
Age discrimination	Age discrimination claim was presented outside the statutory time limit in section 123 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it had no jurisdiction.	Dismissed	Age	—
Disability discrimination	Disability discrimination claim was presented outside the statutory time limit in section 123 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it had no jurisdiction.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.