Case 6022920/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Simon Lane v Ministry of Defence — 2026
- Case reference
- 6022920/2024
- Decision date
- 16 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lambert Appearances
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Simon Lane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Lane's effective date of termination was 30 July 2024. He commenced ACAS early conciliation on 11 October 2024, the certificate was issued on 22 November 2024, and he presented his claim on 23 December 2024. He accepted that the deadline was 22 December 2024 and that the claim was presented late.
The Tribunal rejected Mr Lane's three explanations for the delay. His emails showed that he knew the deadline while awaiting advice from PCS, and the Tribunal found that he knew or ought reasonably to have known by 20 December 2024 that he needed to act without speaking to his case worker. It rejected his evidence that HMCTS staff had said a short delay would not matter. It also found that his evidence about anxiety did not establish that he was unable to submit the claim by the deadline when he was able to prepare and submit it approximately four hours later.
Applying section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable for Mr Lane to present his unfair dismissal claim in time. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed as out of time. No remedy was awarded.
The Tribunal separately applied the just and equitable test under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 to the discrimination claims. It permitted those claims to proceed despite their late presentation; their merits and specific protected characteristics were not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for being presented outside the time limit under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The discrimination claims were permitted to continue and their merits were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 reasonable practicability test
- Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ 470
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy [2019] EWCA 2490 CA
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943 CA
- section 123 Equality Act 2010 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.