Case 1600355/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Roberts v Cardiff County Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600355/2022
- Decision date
- 26 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs N Roberts had been employed by Cardiff County Council from February 2007 and resigned with immediate effect on 4 November 2021. The tribunal recorded that, from the claim form and the correspondence on the file, she should be treated as bringing claims of protected disclosure detriment, constructive unfair dismissal by reason of protected disclosure, ordinary unfair dismissal, and disability discrimination, although the detail of the discrimination claim still needed to be clarified at a further preliminary hearing.
The issues before Employment Judge S Jenkins were whether the unfair dismissal complaint was out of time, whether it should be struck out, and whether a deposit order should be made. The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 4 November 2021, so the primary limitation period expired on 3 February 2022. Ms Roberts contacted ACAS on 13 January 2022, the early conciliation certificate issued on 23 February 2022, and the period was extended to 23 March 2022. Although the claim form was not submitted until 30 March 2022, the tribunal accepted that settlement discussions via ACAS had appeared to reach agreement on 21 or 22 March 2022 and that Ms Roberts then experienced a recurrence of ill health, so it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier and it was submitted within a further reasonable period.
The respondent's strike out and deposit applications were refused. Applying the authorities cited in the judgment, the tribunal held that there were disputed facts and disputed interpretations at the centre of the constructive unfair dismissal case, including the significance of Ms Thomas's 1 September 2021 email about redeployment and Ms Roberts's 15 November 2021 email about AMHP work. Those matters required a full merits hearing and were not suitable for strike out or for a deposit order at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal complaint. At this preliminary hearing the tribunal held that, although the claim form was submitted after the extended limitation date, it was not reasonably practicable to present it earlier because of ACAS settlement discussions and the claimant's ill health, and that it was filed within a further reasonable period. The respondent's strike out and deposit applications were refused. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.111(2)(a) and (b) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- within a further reasonable period
- no reasonable prospect
- little reasonable prospect
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.