Case 1402944/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person (assisted by her mother Sue Earle) For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402944/2022
- Decision date
- 19 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person (assisted by her mother Sue Earle) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claim in full. It found that the Claimant's constructive unfair dismissal complaint and holiday pay complaint were out of time, with the result that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider them. It therefore dismissed those complaints on limitation grounds.
The tribunal also dismissed the complaints relating to disability discrimination. It held that it was not just and equitable to extend time for those complaints, so they were also out of time and dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed because the constructive unfair dismissal complaint was out of time and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the holiday pay complaint was out of time and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time for the disability discrimination complaints. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.