Case 1405293/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Brown v South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405293/2023
- Decision date
- 10 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Brown
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal first considered what unfair dismissal claims were actually pleaded in claim number 1405808/2023. It held that, although the ET1 was difficult to follow, paragraph 57's reference to Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and to a unilateral demotion on 13 and 14 March 2023 was sufficient to amount to a claim of unfair dismissal in relation to the band 8C Head of Research Operations role.
The tribunal did not find that the ET1 contained an unfair dismissal claim in relation to the band 8A Research and Clinical Audit Manager role. In the pleaded case, that role had been described as having ended lawfully and by agreement. The claimant's later application to add an unfair dismissal claim about the band 8A role was dealt with as a case management amendment rather than as part of the judgment.
On time limits, the tribunal considered the claimant's case at its highest and treated 14 March 2023 as the effective date of termination for the alleged band 8C dismissal. It found that the unfair dismissal claim presented on 8 November 2023 was outside the three-month limit. The tribunal concluded it had been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, noting that by 12 May 2023 the claimant was already asserting in her grievance that she had been demoted or dismissed unfairly. It also held, in the alternative, that even if the claimant did not have sufficient information until 23 August 2023, the further delay until 8 November 2023 was not a reasonable further period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that claim 1405808/2023 presented an unfair dismissal claim only in respect of the band 8C role (Head of Research Operations). That claim was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide it. The judgment also held that no unfair dismissal claim had been presented in the ET1 in respect of the band 8A role; permission to amend was dealt with separately as a case management matter. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- 'reasonably practicable' test
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Rajabov v FCO
- Cambridge v Crouchman
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.