Case 1602999/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Ward v C W Retailing Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602999/2023
- Decision date
- 13 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Othen Representation
- Venue
- by video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H Ward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs H Ward brought claims including unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages against C W Retailing Ltd. The tribunal found both claims had been presented outside the applicable time limit, but accepted that it was not reasonably practicable to present them in time and that they were presented within a further reasonable period. Those claims were therefore allowed to proceed.
The judgment also records claims of harassment related to sex and disability. Those claims were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. This judgment does not determine the merits of the claims or record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the applicable time limit, but that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time and that it was presented within a further reasonable period, so the claim was allowed to proceed. No merits decision is recorded in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unlawful deductions from wages claim was presented outside the applicable time limit, but that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time and that it was presented within a further reasonable period, so the claim was allowed to proceed. No merits decision is recorded in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Harassment | The claim of harassment related to sex was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The claim of harassment related to disability was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- presented within a 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.
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.