Case 1401168/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Darmanin v Butlins Skyline Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401168/2024
- Decision date
- 31 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Volkmer Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Darmanin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C Darmanin brought a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Butlins Skyline Limited. The case was heard by Employment Judge Volkmer at Exeter by video on 3 December 2024. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would follow unless requested.
The tribunal dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal complaint because it had not been presented within the applicable time limit. It found that it was reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time, so the claim failed on limitation grounds.
The disability discrimination complaints were also dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal found that those complaints were not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed because it was presented outside the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination complaints were dismissed because they were presented outside the applicable time limit and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. | 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.