Case 1802588/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Phillips v First Response Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802588/2022
- Decision date
- 25 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Phillips
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs L Phillips's claims against First Response Group Ltd were dismissed because the Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear them. The Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for her to present the unfair dismissal, breach of contract, Working Time Regulations, unpaid wages and holiday pay complaints within the relevant time limits, but she did not do so.
The Tribunal also dealt with the sex discrimination complaint separately and found that it was not just and equitable to extend time. No substantive liability findings or monetary award were made, and the claims were dismissed in full.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the unfair dismissal complaint in time, but she did not do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the breach of contract complaint in time, but she did not do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed because the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the Working Time Regulations complaint in time, but she did not do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the unpaid wages complaint in time, but she did not do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the holiday pay complaint in time, but she did not do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed because the Tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time for the sex discrimination complaint. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- 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.