Case 1601717/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Isla-Jane McEwan v Hywel Dda University Local Health Board — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601717/2019
- Decision date
- 2 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beard Dated
- Venue
- Carmarthen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Isla-Jane McEwan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge M R Havard at Carmarthen on 25 November 2019. The claimant, Mrs Isla-Jane McEwan, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal dealt only with time-limit issues and did not reach the merits of the substantive complaints.
The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her unfair dismissal claim within the applicable time limit under the Employment Rights Act 1996. Because the claim had been presented after that period, the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear it and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal also held that it would not be just and equitable to extend time for the claimant's disability discrimination claims. Those claims were also presented out of time, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear them, and they were dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented after the time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed on limitation grounds because the tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time for the disability discrimination claims, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.