Case 6018785/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Smith v Air Products plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018785/2024
- Decision date
- 16 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr W Smith brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Air Products plc. The tribunal heard the case at Reading on 30 September 2025 before Employment Judge Hawksworth sitting alone.
The tribunal decided that the unfair dismissal complaint had not been presented within the applicable time limit under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It further found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within that time limit, so the statutory time limit could not be extended.
On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the claim. No monetary remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit under section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996. It found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, so the time limit could not be extended. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.