Case 1402014/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Lauren James v Phoenix Fast Foods Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402014/2021
- Decision date
- 23 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Danvers Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Lauren James
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing took place by video at Bristol on 14 June 2022 before Employment Judge Danvers. The Claimant, Miss Lauren James, did not attend. The Respondent was represented by Mr Ross, its Managing Director. The Claimant’s application to postpone the preliminary hearing was refused because it had been made less than seven days before the hearing date and no exceptional circumstance was identified.
The only substantive claim recorded in the judgment was unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the claim had been presented outside the three month time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It further found that there were no grounds for extending time. As a result, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim and the claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was presented outside the three month time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found there were no grounds for extending time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.