Case 1602388/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Ms C Short v Ms L Matthews — 2020

Case reference: 1602388/2019
Decision date: 10 August 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Harfield
Venue: Cardiff

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms C Short

Respondent

Ms L Matthews

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant worked as a cleaning assistant and her employment transferred to the respondent under TUPE in April 2019 while she was on sick leave. On 29 April 2019 the respondent notified her that her employment was being terminated on redundancy grounds, gave two weeks' notice, said final salary would be paid on 10 May 2019, and attached a redundancy calculation based on two years' service. The claim form was presented on 20 December 2019 after ACAS early conciliation ran from 16 September 2019 to 16 October 2019.

The tribunal first dealt with limitation. It accepted that the claimant had been told by the CAB, and had also researched matters herself, that ACAS early conciliation should ordinarily be started within three months. It also accepted that the CAB had told her to write to the respondent first, and that the respondent should have replied to her letter of 16 May 2019. However, the judge found that the claimant knew the time limits, should have monitored them herself, and that her anxiety and related health problems did not prevent her from understanding or acting on the deadlines. Applying section 123 Equality Act 2010 and the just and equitable approach in Keeble, the disability discrimination complaint was dismissed as out of time.

For the unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages complaints, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable to present the claims within the primary time limits under section 111(2) and section 23(2) ERA 1996. The judge found that the claimant had sufficient awareness of the three-month limit, could have started ACAS early conciliation before 28 July 2019, and had no good reason for the later delays in issuing the tribunal claim after the ACAS certificate was issued.

The statutory redundancy payment complaint was treated differently. The tribunal held that the claimant preserved her right to claim by writing to the respondent on 16 May 2019 within the six-month period under section 164 ERA 1996. That complaint was therefore within time and could proceed to a final hearing. No substantive merits decision or monetary award was made at this hearing.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal held that the act complained of, the decision to dismiss the claimant, was outside the primary time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Unfair dismissal	Dismissed as out of time. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the primary time limit under section 111(2) ERA 1996.	Dismissed	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	Notice pay claim dismissed as out of time. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the primary time limit.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Dismissed as out of time. The complaint covered holiday pay and arrears of statutory sick pay, and the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to have started the claim within time.	Dismissed	—	—
Redundancy	The statutory redundancy payment complaint was held to be within time because the claimant put the claim in writing on 16 May 2019 within the relevant six-month period. The claim was allowed to proceed to a final hearing and was not finally determined at this hearing.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.