Case 6004395/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Bent v JD Sports Fashion plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004395/2024
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mclaren REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Bent
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 4 February 2025, Employment Judge Mclaren dismissed Mr N Bent's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal against JD Sports Fashion PLC. The complaint had been presented outside the applicable time limit, and the tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time.
The tribunal also dismissed the race and disability discrimination complaints because they were presented outside the applicable time limit. It found that extending time was not just and equitable. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; the written judgment records no findings on the underlying allegations and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint was constructive unfair dismissal. It was dismissed because it was presented outside the applicable time limit and it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Presented outside the applicable time limit. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Presented outside the applicable time limit. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Whether it was reasonably practicable to present the constructive unfair dismissal complaint within the applicable time limit
- Whether it was just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination complaints
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.