Case 1600038/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Brooks v Spa Residential Home Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600038/2021
- Decision date
- 22 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Brooks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing on 21 September 2021 before Employment Judge R F Powell, the tribunal considered only a limitation/jurisdiction issue in Ms E Brooks's claim against Spa Residential Home Ltd. The judgment records that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claim before expiry of the three-month time limit.
The tribunal also found that the claim was presented within a further reasonable period. On that basis, it held that the claim was within the Employment Tribunal's jurisdiction for the purposes of section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment does not record any determination of the substantive complaint or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary jurisdiction ruling only. The tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within the three-month time limit and that it was presented within a further reasonable period, so the claim was within the tribunal's jurisdiction under s.111 ERA 1996. No substantive liability finding is recorded. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- further reasonable period
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.