Case 1601661/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Pedro v L. Rowlands & Company (Retail) Limited Heard By Video at: Swansea Civil Justice Centre — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601661/2022
- Decision date
- 16 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Povey Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Pedro
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A Pedro brought a claim described in the judgment as automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found that the claim had not been presented within the three months beginning with the effective date of termination.
The tribunal further found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, and that it was not presented within any further period the tribunal considered reasonable. By reason of section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that it could not consider the claim and struck it out.
The judgment also records that all other claims against L. Rowlands & Company (Retail) Limited were dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the automatic unfair dismissal claim contrary to section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was not presented within the three-month time limit, that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and that it was not presented within any further period the tribunal considered reasonable. It was therefore struck out under section 111. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that all other claims against the respondent were dismissed upon withdrawal, but it does not identify those claims individually. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.