Case 6006674/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Ardom v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6006674/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Ardom
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim had been presented within time. It found that the claim was out of time, that it had been reasonably practicable to present it within the applicable time limit, and that, if it had not been reasonably practicable, the claim was not presented within a reasonable time thereafter. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also considered the discrimination complaint, which it understood to be a claim for race discrimination. It found that the complaint was out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. The race discrimination claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time and, alternatively, it was not presented within a reasonable time thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The discrimination complaint was understood to be a race discrimination claim and was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable time limit
- just and equitable time limit
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.