Case 1403651/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Marr, lay representative For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403651/2019
- Decision date
- 2 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms C Marr, lay representative For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Bristol on 2 January 2020, Employment Judge Midgley considered whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the First Claimant, Ms S Stevens's unfair dismissal claim. The respondent argued that the claim had been presented outside the statutory limitation period.
The tribunal held that the claim was nevertheless in time for jurisdictional purposes because it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it within the limitation period, and it was then presented within a reasonable period afterwards. On that basis, the tribunal accepted jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and no written reasons would follow unless requested. No substantive liability finding or remedy was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary jurisdiction ruling for the First Claimant, Ms S Stevens. The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the statutory limitation period but that it was not reasonably practical to present it in time and it was brought within a reasonable period thereafter. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.207B(4) ERA 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.