Case 6004199/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Glen Ford v ABM Facility Services UK Ltd (sued as “ABM”) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004199/2024
- Decision date
- 20 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Glen Ford
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against ABM Facility Services UK Limited. The tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction despite the complaint having been presented outside the limitation period.
The tribunal found that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the unfair dismissal complaint within the limitation period, and that it was presented within a reasonable time thereafter. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
The judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing. It does not determine the substantive unfair dismissal complaint or make any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment determined only that it was not reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal complaint within the limitation period, that it was presented within a reasonable time thereafter, and that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it. The merits of the unfair dismissal complaint were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- reasonable time thereafter
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.