Case 1802045/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Goldsmith v Calderdale Self Storage Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802045/2020
- Decision date
- 2 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain
- Panel members
- Mrs H Brown, Mr K Lannaman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Goldsmith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Sheffield on 21 February 2022, Employment Judge Brain sat with Mrs H Brown and Mr K Lannaman. Mrs S Goldsmith appeared in person and Calderdale Self Storage Ltd was represented by Mr C Breen, Counsel.
The tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint, brought under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 on the basis of a protected disclosure, was presented outside the section 111 limitation period in circumstances where it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. It also held that the claimant's harassment complaints under sections 26 and 40 of the Equality Act 2010 were presented outside the section 123 limitation period and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Accordingly, the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider either complaint. No remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint brought under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 on the basis of a protected disclosure; the tribunal held it was presented outside the section 111 limitation period where it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment complaints brought under sections 26 and 40 of the Equality Act 2010; the tribunal held they were presented outside the section 123 limitation period and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111 ERA 1996 reasonably practicable
- 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.