Case 1402689/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Karen Tuffney v South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402689/2022
- Decision date
- 18 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Karen Tuffney
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with limitation as a preliminary issue. It found that the claimant resigned on 31 March 2022, began Acas early conciliation on 14 April 2022, received the certificate on 11 May 2022, and lodged the claim on 19 August 2022, which was outside the applicable time limit.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claim in time. It accepted that she had work, financial pressures, dog training commitments, and some ill health, but found there was no medical evidence that her conditions prevented her from lodging a claim. The tribunal also found that she knew tribunal proceedings were in contemplation by the time she contacted Acas, had internet access, could have sought advice, and had no adequate explanation for waiting until August 2022.
For the discrimination claim, the tribunal considered whether it was just and equitable to extend time and decided it was not. It found that the claimant had not given a clear explanation for the delay and that the same factual matters which failed to justify an extension for unfair dismissal also meant an extension was not justified for discrimination. The tribunal specifically noted that, on the claimant's own case, the auxiliary aids complaint ran from 2 February 2022 and was about three months out of time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the time limit and was struck out after the tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to a discrimination claim based on the claimant's medical conditions, including an alleged failure to provide auxiliary aids. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and struck out the claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- reasonable practicability test
- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- just and equitable extension of time
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.33 Limitation Act 1980
- Paczkowski v Sieradzka
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
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.