Case 1301437/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Ms I Kurtulikova v Pilkington Automotive Ltd DECISION AT AN OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING (Hearing type code “V”) — 2021

Case reference: 1301437/2021
Decision date: 22 October 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge V Jones

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms I Kurtulikova

Respondent

Pilkington Automotive Ltd DECISION AT AN OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING (Hearing type code “V”)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At an open preliminary hearing on 21 October 2021 before Employment Judge V Jones sitting alone in Birmingham by CVP, the tribunal considered jurisdiction and time-limit issues in Ms I Kurtulikova's claims against Pilkington Automotive Ltd. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by a solicitor.

The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because it was presented outside the normal time limit in section 111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996, as extended by section 207B, and found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within that time limit. It also held that it was not just and equitable to extend the primary time limit under section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 for presenting the discrimination claim.

The tribunal found that the discrimination allegation relating to the respondent's internal appeal process and outcome had been brought in time under ss108, 120 and 123 Equality Act 2010. It left for the full merits hearing the question whether the alleged discrimination in the selection for redundancy and dismissal formed part of conduct extending over a period ending with the outcome of the appeal on 19 March 2021. No monetary award was made at this hearing.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Preliminary jurisdiction ruling only. The tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend the primary time limit under section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 for presenting the discrimination claim, but found the allegation relating to the respondent's internal appeal process and outcome was in time under ss108, 120 and 123. It left open for the full merits hearing whether the redundancy selection and dismissal allegation formed part of conduct extending over a period ending with the appeal outcome on 19 March 2021.	Other	Disability	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because it was presented outside the normal time limit in section 111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996, as extended by section 207B, and found it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim within time.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

8 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.