Case 1601304/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Latha v Methodist Homes for the Aged — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601304/2018
- Decision date
- 23 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Latha
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Cardiff on 19 July 2019, Employment Judge Howden-Evans, sitting alone, heard submissions from both parties and considered the respondent's written submissions on whether Mrs Latha's unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims had been brought in time. The judgment records that both claims were presented within the relevant time limits under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010, and that the Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to hear them.
The decision did not determine the merits of either claim. No remedy, liability finding, or substantive factual determination is recorded in the written judgment, which notes that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing on time limits and jurisdiction only; the tribunal found the claim was presented within the relevant time limit and that it had jurisdiction to hear it. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing on time limits and jurisdiction only; the tribunal found the race discrimination claim was presented within the relevant time limit and that it had jurisdiction to hear it. | Other | Race | — |
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.