Case 1400594/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Wild v Best Experience Limited t/a McDonald’s — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400594/2022
- Decision date
- 16 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Wild
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the video hearing on 14 December 2022, Employment Judge Volkmer held that Miss N Wild had not brought her claims within the statutory time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable for her to have done so. On that basis, the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider her claims of unfair dismissal under sections 94, 98, 100 and 103A of the Employment Rights Act, breach of contract, and detriment on the ground of making a protected disclosure.
All three claims were therefore dismissed. The written record states that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal held the claim was brought outside the statutory time limit and it had been reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present it in time, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the Tribunal held the claim was brought outside the statutory time limit and it had been reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present it in time, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed because the Tribunal held the claim was brought outside the statutory time limit and it had been reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present it in time, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.100 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- statutory time limit
- reasonably practicable
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.