Case 1604121/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Sperry v J D Wetherspoon plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 1604121/2024
- Decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Williams REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Sperry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed without notice on 12 March 2024 and brought complaints of unfair dismissal and whistleblowing. The whistleblowing complaint had been withdrawn before the final hearing. The unfair dismissal complaint was presented on 3 September 2024 after early conciliation from 3 May 2024 to 3 June 2024, and the tribunal found that the last date for presenting it in time was 12 July 2024.
The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the unfair dismissal complaint in time and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim. It nevertheless considered the substantive unfair dismissal complaint after hearing the evidence.
On the substantive complaint, the tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, carried out an adequate investigation, acted in a procedurally fair manner, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed both on time-limit grounds and because it was not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time, and also found in any event that the complaint was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claimant withdrew the whistleblowing complaint at a case management hearing on 7 January 2025 and that a judgment dismissing that complaint was issued on the same date. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- range of reasonable responses
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.