Case 6022863/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 6022863/2024
- Decision date
- 5 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smeaton Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Mr S Fortune’s claims of constructive unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination and direct age discrimination. Each claim had been brought out of time.
The Tribunal found no grounds to extend the time limit for the constructive unfair dismissal claim under s.111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 or for the discrimination claims under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. The judgment recorded no monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim because it was brought out of time and there were no grounds to extend time under s.111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the direct race discrimination claim because it was brought out of time and there were no grounds to extend time under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. | Other | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the direct age discrimination claim because it was brought out of time and there were no grounds to extend time under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
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.