Case 1401001/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Michael v Computershare Investor Services plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401001/2021
- Decision date
- 11 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Michael
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the video hearing in Bristol on 9 February 2022, Employment Judge Midgley dealt with a preliminary issue on limitation. The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim had been presented out of time, that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and that the tribunal therefore did not have jurisdiction to hear it. That claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Presented out of time, but the tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time and that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The merits were not determined in this judgment; the claimant was ordered to confirm whether she wished to withdraw or pursue the claim and, if pursued, to provide further and better particulars. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable to present the claim in time
- just and equitable to extend time
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.