Case 1600954/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Lacey v United Petfood Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600954/2024
- Decision date
- 7 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharp JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Lacey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 8 May 2024, the tribunal gave Mrs A Lacey an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. In response, her letter of 18 May 2024 was considered as a possible amendment application, but it did not address why the claim had not been included in the ET1, why amendment was in the interests of justice, or why time should be extended.
The tribunal stated that the claimant had misunderstood wrongful dismissal: it is not unfair dismissal, and the question is whether the respondent was contractually entitled to dismiss her rather than whether the process was unfair. The tribunal noted that the claimant appeared to accept she had not met targets, said any wrongful dismissal claim would in any event be limited to notice pay if not already, refused the amendment application, and struck out the claim. It added that the claimant could issue a new claim, but it would be out of time unless she could show that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time and that it was presented within a reasonable period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim. It treated the claimant's letter of 18 May 2024 as a possible amendment application, but refused amendment because the application did not explain why the claim was not in the ET1, why amendment was in the interests of justice, or why time should be extended. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- interests of justice
- not reasonably practicable
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.