Case 6015281/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Walker v Cloud Imperium Games — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015281/2024
- Decision date
- 24 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Walker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Walker's case against Cloud Imperium Games Limited was heard at Manchester on 7 April 2025 before Employment Judge K M Ross. The Tribunal recorded an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act claims for direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, disability-related harassment and victimisation. The judgment dealt only with limitation and jurisdiction and did not determine the substantive merits of those allegations.
The Tribunal held that the s.103A claim was presented outside the s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996 time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. That claim was therefore struck out for want of jurisdiction. The direct discrimination, reasonable adjustments, harassment and victimisation claims were also presented outside the s.123(1) Equality Act 2010 time limit, and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to allow them to proceed out of time. Those claims were also struck out, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996; presented out of time under s.111 ERA 1996 and struck out because it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010; presented out of time under s.123(1) EqA 2010 and struck out because it was not just and equitable to allow it out of time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim under ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010; presented out of time under s.123(1) EqA 2010 and struck out because it was not just and equitable to allow it out of time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment claim under s.26 Equality Act 2010; presented out of time under s.123(1) EqA 2010 and struck out because it was not just and equitable to allow it out of time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010; presented out of time under s.123(1) EqA 2010 and struck out because it was not just and equitable to allow it out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- 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.