Case 1302645/2023 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Ms Victoria Othen, Solicitor — 2024

Case reference: 1302645/2023
Decision date: 14 May 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dimbylow Case

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Ms Victoria Othen, Solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a public preliminary hearing on 14 May 2024 before Employment Judge Dimbylow, the tribunal dealt with two claims: constructive unfair dismissal under s.95 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and harassment under s.26 of the Equality Act 2010. Both claims were found to have been presented out of time.

On the constructive unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the claimant had not demonstrated that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. Time was not extended, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim, and the claim was dismissed.

On the harassment claim, the tribunal found that the matter was not part of a continuing act for limitation purposes and that the claimant had not shown it would be just and equitable to extend time. Time was therefore not extended, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction, and the claim was dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	Presented out of time. The tribunal found the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, so it did not extend time and held that it had no jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—
Harassment	Presented out of time. The tribunal found it was not part of a continuing act, and the claimant had not shown that it would be just and equitable to extend time, so it did not extend time and held that it had no jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.