Case 6007373/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Anthony Dunne v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust HELD AT: Manchester (In public by video) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6007373/2025
- Decision date
- 9 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Anthony Dunne
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims against Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust for discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and unfair dismissal.
The Tribunal found that the disability discrimination and reasonable adjustment claims were presented out of time on 4 March 2025. It was not just and equitable to extend time, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear those claims and dismissed them.
The Tribunal also found that the unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time on 4 March 2025. It was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present that claim before the time limit expired, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that claims of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments were presented out of time, that it was not just and equitable to extend time, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time, that it was reasonably practicable to present it before expiry of the time limit, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010
- Sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010
- Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- just and equitable to extend the time limit
- 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.