Case 1806445/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Rowe v The West Yorkshire Community Rehabilitation Company Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806445/2019
- Decision date
- 12 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Rowe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 12 February 2020, Employment Judge Davies considered the claimant's breach of contract and victimisation complaints. The claimant did not attend and did not contact the Tribunal, and the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The breach of contract complaint concerned alleged failures to make employer pension contributions. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that there had been a payroll issue affecting pension contributions in 2018, that an audit was carried out and £233.51 was paid into the claimant's pension in December 2018, and that the claimant had been informed of the position by email on 12 July 2019. Applying the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) (England and Wales) Order 1994, the tribunal held that the claim was presented out of time: the effective date of termination was 17 April 2019, ACAS early conciliation began on 13 August 2019, and the claim was presented on 25 October 2019. It found there was no basis to conclude that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, so the breach of contract claim was dismissed.
The victimisation complaint appeared to concern a £805 student-loan repayment and the handling of pension queries after employment ended. The tribunal applied Rule 37 and the authorities it cited on strike-out, including Evans, Balls, North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias, Anyanwu, Mechkarov and Ahir. It held that the claim had not been actively pursued and that allowing it to continue would risk serious prejudice to the respondent. It also held that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the student-loan repayment had an innocent explanation on the respondent's account and there was no proper basis, on the material before the tribunal, to infer detriment because of a protected act. The tribunal did not enter judgment for the respondent on its employer's contract claim because no contractual term said to have been breached had been identified.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed for being presented out of time under the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) (England and Wales) Order 1994; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Struck out under Rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued and had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment does not identify a protected characteristic in the extracted text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Rule 37
- Evans v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- Ahir v British Airways plc
- Rule 21
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.