Case 1600601/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Sims v Convatec Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600601/2020
- Decision date
- 20 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans
- Venue
- via video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Sims
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing heard by Employment Judge Howden-Evans sitting alone via video, the tribunal considered submissions from both parties, the claimant's evidence on oath, and the bundles of documents. The issue decided was whether Mrs Sims's unfair dismissal claim had been presented within the relevant time limits under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was presented in time and that the tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to hear it. This was a judgment on a preliminary issue only. It did not decide whether the dismissal was fair or unfair, and no liability or remedy findings were made on the substantive claim.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days. No award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only: the tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was presented within the relevant time limits in the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The merits of the dismissal claim were not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.