Case 1301928/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Clougher v Lidl Great Britain Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301928/2022
- Decision date
- 19 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bennett Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Clougher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing held in private after an order under rule 50, the Tribunal considered applications by the Claimant to amend her claim. It allowed an amendment to include constructive unfair dismissal and refused an amendment to include sex discrimination.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant's claims were out of time for the reasons given orally at the hearing. It concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claims and dismissed them in their entirety. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were out of time, that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider them, and that they were dismissed in their entirety. The specific original claims are not set out in the judgment text, but the public listing category identifies maternity and pregnancy rights. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The Tribunal allowed the Claimant's application to amend her claim to include constructive unfair dismissal, but then dismissed the claims in their entirety because they were out of time and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The Claimant's application to amend her claim to include sex discrimination was refused; the judgment does not record the sex discrimination claim as having been admitted and then determined on its merits. | Other | Sex | — |
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.