Case 6003679/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Paul Rhodes v Openreach Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003679/2024
- Decision date
- 11 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Serr REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Paul Rhodes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered time limits at a public CVP hearing in Manchester. It found that the unfair dismissal claim under s.95 and s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 had not been presented within the applicable time limit, and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
The tribunal also considered disability discrimination claims brought under s.13, s.15 and s.21 of the Equality Act 2010. It found those claims were presented outside the applicable time limit, but that it was just and equitable to extend time. Those disability discrimination claims were therefore allowed to proceed and were not determined on their merits in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim under s.95 and s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination claims under s.13, s.15 and s.21 Equality Act 2010 were not finally determined. The tribunal found they were presented out of time but extended time on just and equitable grounds, so those claims will proceed. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
- reasonably practicable
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.