Case 6022202/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Gilbert v Sodexo Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022202/2024
- Decision date
- 23 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Gilbert
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 16 September 2025, before Employment Judge Nash, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal dealt with preliminary time limit issues only and did not reach the substantive merits of either claim.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal found it had not been presented within the statutory time limit when it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to do so. On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim.
The disability discrimination claim was also dismissed because it was not presented within the statutory time limit. The tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time for the claim to be considered. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claim was not presented within the statutory time limit when it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to do so, so it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claim was not presented within the statutory time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable test
- just and equitable test
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.