Case 1404732/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J A Gover v Sursum Limited t/a Bramley House — 2021
- Case reference
- 1404732/2020
- Decision date
- 26 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Walters Appearances
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J A Gover
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, the tribunal dealt with limitation rather than the merits. It held that the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim, said to arise from dismissal on 14 April 2020, was out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time. That claim was therefore struck out for want of jurisdiction.
The tribunal also considered the Claimant’s disability discrimination complaint that the Respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments, with the last adjustment said to have been due on 14 April 2020. It found that this claim was also out of time, but that it was just and equitable to extend time. The judgment does not record any substantive determination of liability on the reasonable adjustments complaint.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim, said to arise from dismissal on 14 April 2020, was out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time; it was struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the reasonable adjustments claim, described as the last adjustment should have been made on 14 April 2020, was out of time but that it was just and equitable to extend time. The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of that claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- 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.