Case 6022461/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr James Morrison v Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 6022461/2025
- Decision date
- 13 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr James Morrison
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination following his dismissal by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust. The Tribunal considered at an open preliminary hearing whether the claims had been presented in time and, if not, whether time should be extended under the applicable statutory tests.
The Tribunal found that the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present it in time. It also found that the disability discrimination claim was presented outside the section 123 Equality Act 2010 time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The Tribunal noted the Claimant's evidence about a historic brain injury, but concluded that his ability to engage with internal appeal and NMC proceedings, obtain and maintain employment, and approach ACAS earlier did not support the asserted inability to bring tribunal proceedings sooner. The Tribunal held that both claims were out of time, that it had no jurisdiction to hear them, and that the claim form was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was presented after the time limit under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear it and the claim form was struck out. The supplied PDF text is truncated, but includes the reserved judgment and relevant conclusions. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim was presented after the time limit under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear it and the claim form was struck out. The supplied PDF text is truncated, but includes the reserved judgment and relevant conclusions. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-On-Sea Borough Council
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
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.