Case 1401528/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Jane Gilbert (Claimant’s mother in law) For the v Stuart Lawrenson of Shoosmiths LLP — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401528/2022
- Decision date
- 8 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Lumby Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jane Gilbert (Claimant’s mother in law) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge H Lumby sitting alone at Southampton on 1 December 2022. The only issue decided was timeliness. The claimant, Michael Gilbert-Travers (deceased), was represented by Jane Gilbert and the respondent by Stuart Lawrenson of Shoosmiths LLP.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim had been presented within the time required by section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claim was presented within such further period as the tribunal considered reasonable, because it was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented within the normal three-month period beginning with the effective date of termination.
No substantive liability finding or remedy was recorded in this judgment. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the record of decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal decided the claim was presented within the time required by section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996 because it was presented within such further period as the tribunal considered reasonable where it was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within three months of the effective date of termination. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- reasonable further period
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.