Case 1403910/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Fisher v Novia Financial plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403910/2019
- Decision date
- 3 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Fisher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant had not resigned when the claim form was presented. Her resignation letter was sent later, on 3 October 2019, and gave four weeks' notice expiring on 31 October 2019. The judge therefore found that, at the point of presentation, there had been no resignation and the claim was brought before the notice of resignation was given.
Applying rule 37 and the Employment Rights Act 1996, including sections 95, 97 and 111(3), and referring to Gisda Cyf v Barratt, Presley v Llanelli Borough Council and Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law, Employment Judge Dawson held that a constructive dismissal complaint may be presented after notice is given but before the effective date of termination. Because notice had not been given when this claim was presented, the tribunal held that the claim was premature and that it had no jurisdiction to consider it. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out, and the judgment states that this decision did not affect the discrimination claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal treated the issue as a premature constructive unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out because the claimant had not yet given notice when the claim form was presented; it held there was no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- rule 37
- s.95 ERA 1996
- s.97 ERA 1996
- s.111(3) ERA 1996
- Gisda Cyf v Barratt
- Presley v Llanelli Borough Council
- Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law
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.