Case 1601878/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Bruce v SSE Services plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601878/2018
- Decision date
- 24 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge RL Brace
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Bruce
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Cardiff on 20 September 2019, Employment Judge RL Brace decided that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim had been presented out of time, but time was extended under s.111(2) ERA 1996. The same written record states that the claimant's discrimination claims were also out of time, but it was just and equitable to extend time under s.123 Equality Act 2010.
The document is a short judgment record and does not contain any substantive liability findings on the dismissal or discrimination allegations. It records only the preliminary limitation rulings, and it does not record any compensation or other remedy. It also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons were not provided in the record.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was brought out of time but extended time under s.111(2) ERA 1996. The written record does not include a merits decision. | Other | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held the discrimination claims were brought out of time but extended time under s.123 Equality Act 2010 on a just and equitable basis. The written record does not include a merits decision. | Other | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held the discrimination claims were brought out of time but extended time under s.123 Equality Act 2010 on a just and equitable basis. The written record does not include a merits decision. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- 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.