Case 1804283/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R.Macauley v Mr M. Pitchford T/A Country Park Stores and Cafe — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804283/2020
- Decision date
- 13 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R.Smith Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R.Macauley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Hull by CVP on 13 October 2020 before Employment Judge T.R. Smith, the tribunal considered Miss Macauley's claims against Mr M. Pitchford T/A Country Park Stores and Cafe on time-limit grounds. It held that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present her unfair dismissal complaint within three months beginning with the effective date of termination.
The tribunal also dealt with the Claimant's discrimination complaints, which it recorded were lodged out of time. It held that it was not just and equitable to extend time for those complaints.
In the circumstances, the Claimant's complaints were dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present her unfair dismissal complaint within three months beginning with the effective date of termination, and the complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time for the Claimant's discrimination complaints, which had been lodged out of time, and dismissed them. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.