Case 1403117/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Dr G Somerville v Rothamsted Research — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403117/2022
- Decision date
- 25 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Matthews Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr G Somerville
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr Somerville brought a breach of contract claim arising from her employment with Rothamsted Research. She resigned with effect from 25 May 2020 and presented her tribunal claim on 27 September 2022. The tribunal recorded that the relevant three-month time limit under article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 would have required presentation by 24 August 2020, subject to any extension for ACAS early conciliation.
The tribunal found that ACAS early conciliation took place only between 22 September 2022 and 27 September 2022, so the claim was still out of time by more than two years. Dr Somerville said it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier because she had considered UK legal redress too expensive and impractical, and because she did not know about the tribunal system or its time limits.
The tribunal rejected that explanation. It found the main cause of delay was choice, and that Dr Somerville was educated and technologically aware, so she had ample opportunity to enquire about her rights and any applicable time limits. As a result, it was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time, and the breach of contract complaint was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed on jurisdiction/time-limit grounds. The tribunal found the claim was presented more than two years after the effective date of termination and that Dr Somerville had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- article 8B of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.