Case 1401151/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Jones v Aspens Services — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401151/2019
- Decision date
- 19 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Livesey held that the Claimant's claims had been issued out of time, but allowed them to proceed. For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the normal time limit and that it had been issued within such further time as was reasonable under s.111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
For the discrimination complaints, the tribunal found that it was just and equitable to allow them to proceed under s.123 of the Equality Act 2010. The written record states that the claims were to proceed in accordance with the Case Management Summary and Order of the same date. No merits findings or remedy were recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary limitation decision only. The tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim to have been presented within time and that it was presented within such further time as was reasonable under s.111 ERA 1996. The merits were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Preliminary limitation decision only. The tribunal held it was just and equitable for the discrimination complaints to proceed under s.123 Equality Act 2010. The extracted text does not identify the protected characteristic(s); the merits were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
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.