Case 1403871/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L McGrath v Solent Youth Services Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1403871/2020
- Decision date
- 6 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L McGrath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal, breach of contract (wrongful dismissal), and holiday pay claims because they had been presented out of time. The tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with those claims. It also dismissed the claimant's application to amend to add a claim of unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996; to the extent that claim was already pleaded, it was dismissed under the same out-of-time ruling.
The tribunal held that the claimant's sex discrimination, victimisation, and harassment claims were presented within such period as it thought just and equitable from the date of dismissal. Those claims were therefore not dismissed as out of time in this judgment, but the tribunal did not decide their merits at the preliminary hearing.
The claimant's separate application to amend the claim form to seek a declaration that a Director's Service Agreement was void for misrepresentation, or avoidable, was dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it. The respondent's application for a deposit order in respect of the sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims was also dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because it was presented out of time and the tribunal said it lacked jurisdiction to deal with it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Plead as breach of contract (wrongful dismissal); dismissed because it was presented out of time and the tribunal said it lacked jurisdiction to deal with it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because it was presented out of time and the tribunal said it lacked jurisdiction to deal with it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Held to have been presented within such period as the tribunal thought just and equitable from the date of dismissal. No merits decision was made at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Held to have been presented within such period as the tribunal thought just and equitable from the date of dismissal. No merits decision was made at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Held to have been presented within such period as the tribunal thought just and equitable from the date of dismissal. No merits decision was made at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable
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.