Case 1601909/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Jones v The City and County of Cardiff — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601909/2019
- Decision date
- 17 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss H Jones, applied to amend her claim to include unfair dismissal. Employment Judge S Jenkins granted that application, but the tribunal then dealt with timeliness issues for both claims.
The tribunal held that the claimant's disability discrimination claim was presented outside the required time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It also held that it was not reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim to have been brought within the required time period, but that it was not then brought within a further reasonable period.
As a result, the tribunal stated that the claimant's claims stood dismissed. No remedy award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the disability discrimination claim was not brought within the required time period and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's application to amend her claim to include unfair dismissal was granted, but the unfair dismissal claim was found to have been brought outside the required time period and not within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- just and equitable to extend time
- reasonably practicable
- further reasonable period
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.