Case 6009623/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Murray v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009623/2025
- Decision date
- 30 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Murray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint and the automatically unfair dismissal complaint based on protected disclosure because they were not presented within the applicable time limits and it was reasonably practicable to present them in time. It also dismissed two failure to make reasonable adjustments complaints concerning alternative work location or shifts and time off for therapy appointments, finding that they were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The Tribunal allowed several complaints to proceed to a final hearing. These included disability discrimination arising from dismissal, disability-related harassment, victimisation, failure to make reasonable adjustments by not allowing a support worker, indirect discrimination in the alternative, and protected disclosure detriment. The judgment records that issues about continuing acts or series of acts will be determined at a final hearing.
The decision records no monetary remedy and no final determination on the merits of the complaints that were allowed to proceed.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal on grounds of having made a protected disclosure under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Two failure to make reasonable adjustments complaints, concerning alternative work location or shifts by early 2024 and time off for therapy appointments, were dismissed as out of time; the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint that dismissal on 31 October 2024 was discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability was allowed to proceed after the Tribunal extended time. Earlier alleged unfavourable treatment and any continuing act issue were left for a final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to disability on 31 October 2024 was allowed to proceed after the Tribunal extended time. Whether earlier alleged harassment formed part of a continuing act was left for a final hearing. |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010
- Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010
- Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010
- Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010
- Section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.