Case 1600785/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Ward v Pet Funeral Services Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600785/2021
- Decision date
- 2 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms C Peel, Mrs M Humphries
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Ward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant resigned from her employment with Pet Funeral Services Ltd, and the effective date of termination was 24 May 2021. The tribunal found that the respondent did not dismiss her, so the unfair constructive dismissal claim failed and was dismissed.
The tribunal recorded that claims numbered 1, 18 and 22 in the claimant's schedule were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. It also held that all discrimination claims pre-dating 28 January 2021 were presented out of time, and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time.
Although the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction over those time-barred discrimination claims, it went on to consider them alternatively. On that basis it found that the harassment claims based on sex and disability both failed and were dismissed. The tribunal also found that the claimant was a disabled person for the purpose of the proceedings by reason of mental impairments. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim number 1 in the claimant's schedule of claims; withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Claim number 18 in the claimant's schedule of claims; withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Claim number 22 in the claimant's schedule of claims; withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant resigned from her employment; the tribunal found the respondent did not dismiss her, so the unfair constructive dismissal claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | All discrimination claims pre-dating 28 January 2021 were found to be out of time and outside jurisdiction because it would not be just and equitable to extend time; alternatively, the sex harassment claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | All discrimination claims pre-dating 28 January 2021 were found to be out of time and outside jurisdiction because it would not be just and equitable to extend time; alternatively, the disability harassment claim was dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person for these proceedings by reason of mental impairments. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.