Case 1600167/2023 · Employment Tribunal
IN PERSON (SUPPORTED BY MR SPINKS) FOR THE v Ms Mullen (solicitor) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600167/2023
- Decision date
- 20 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
IN PERSON (SUPPORTED BY MR SPINKS) FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L Tipping-Brotherton’s complaints of unfair dismissal and failure to provide written particulars of employment were both found not to have been presented to the tribunal within three months of the effective date of termination. Employment Judge Povey held that it was reasonably practicable for both complaints to have been presented in time.
Because the tribunal found the claims were out of time and that there was no basis for the delay, it said it could not consider them further. It recorded that the complaints had no reasonable prospects of success and ordered that the claim be struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal complaint was not presented before the end of the three-month limitation period beginning with the effective date of termination. It found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time and struck it out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The complaint of failure to provide written particulars of employment was also found to be out of time. The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented within the three-month period and struck it out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.