Case 1304176/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Parker, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1304176/2024
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harding Approved
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Parker, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Harding on 7 February 2025 in the case of Ms Palmer v Sandwell & West Birmingham NHS Hospitals Trust. The tribunal dealt only with limitation and jurisdiction. It recorded that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record of the decision.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was out of time. It found that it was reasonably practicable for that claim to have been presented within time, and for that reason the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. The claim was dismissed.
The tribunal reached the same overall result on the disability discrimination claim. It held that the claim was not brought within such period as the tribunal considered just and equitable, so it also fell outside the tribunal's jurisdiction and was dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim to have been presented within time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found the claim was not brought within such period as it considered just and equitable, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.