Case 1401227/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Gemma Gurvidi v Anna Sims-Hilditch and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401227/2021
- Decision date
- 8 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. M.
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Gemma Gurvidi
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningGemma Gurvidi’s second ET1 against Hugh Sims-Hilditch repeated the same matters as her earlier claim: unfair dismissal and a sex discrimination complaint. The hearing at Southampton Employment Tribunal on 29 October 2021 was a preliminary jurisdiction hearing conducted via CVP, and the tribunal dealt only with time limits.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint had been presented out of time, but that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented within time. It also held that the Equality Act complaint was not presented within such further period as the tribunal considered just and equitable. The tribunal declined to extend time and concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear claim 1401227/2021. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint was presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable to have presented it within time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment's operative wording referred to the Equality Act complaint as discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act 2010; earlier reasons described the underlying allegation as sex discrimination. The tribunal held that complaint was presented out of time and was not presented within such further period as the tribunal considered just and equitable. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- reasonably practicable test
- just and equitable test
- 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.