Case 1304839/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S, Bisani v Lyttles Residential Homes — 2021
- Case reference
- 1304839/2020
- Decision date
- 19 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Algazy QC
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S, Bisani
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing in Birmingham on 19 October 2021, Employment Judge Algazy QC held that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims brought under the Employment Rights Act 1996 because it was reasonably practicable to have brought those claims in time. The judgment does not set out separate substantive findings on liability for those claims; the dismissal turned on limitation and jurisdiction.
The Tribunal also held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims under the Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for bringing them under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. All claims were dismissed and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed after the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because it was reasonably practicable to have brought the Employment Rights Act 1996 claims in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed together with the other Employment Rights Act 1996 claims on the same time-limit and jurisdiction basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Equality Act 2010 claims dismissed; the Tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, but the extracted text does not specify the protected characteristic or the underlying allegation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- not 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.