Case 1404939/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Cosham Orthodontic Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1404939/2020
- Decision date
- 11 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Jade Gallacher worked for Cosham Orthodontic Limited as a receptionist from 1 November 2016 to 28 March 2019, on 17 hours a week for £130 gross and net. She went on maternity leave in February 2019 after pregnancy-related sickness. The tribunal found that her employment had ended on 29 March 2019, although she was not told of that at the time, and that she only learnt of the termination when HMRC informed her on 27 March 2020 after she had been querying holiday entitlement and working tax credits.
Applying the section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 reasonably practicable test, and citing authorities including Wall's Meat Co v Khan, Palmer and Saunders, and Cullinane, the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was presented as soon as reasonably practicable and within such further period as was reasonable. It accepted that the claimant had been unaware for about a year that her employment had ended, then acted promptly by contacting ACAS on 1 April 2020, receiving an EC certificate on 24 April 2020, and presenting proceedings on 21 September 2020.
For the holiday pay complaint under the Working Time Regulations 1998, the tribunal held that the claim could proceed, but noted that no accrued holiday pay was due as at the date of termination. For the discrimination complaint under section 18 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis, taking into account the claimant's lack of knowledge of the dismissal, her anxiety, GP advice to avoid confrontation, and the difficulties of lockdown. The judgment referred to Keeble, Morgan, Adedeji, Robertson, Caston, and related limitation authorities in reaching those conclusions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Time-limit objection was resolved in the claimant's favour and the claim was allowed to proceed; the tribunal made no merits finding on dismissal. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the claim could proceed under the Working Time Regulations 1998, but recorded that no accrued holiday pay was due as at 29 March 2019. | Other | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Time was extended on a just and equitable basis and the claim was allowed to proceed; the tribunal made no merits finding on discrimination. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 30(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable test
- just and equitable test
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea BC
- Wall's Meat Co v Khan
- Cullinane v Balfour Beattie Engineering Services Ltd
- Keeble factors
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Robertson v Bexley Community Service
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.