Case 1806816/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Dunne v Neom Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806816/2019
- Decision date
- 14 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Dunne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge JM Wade in Leeds on 14 January 2020. The issue was limitation only: whether Ms D Dunne’s Employment Rights Act 1996 complaints had been presented in time. The tribunal noted this was not an Equality Act case, so there was no discretion to extend time. It identified the last date for presentation as 15 November 2019 and found that the claims were not presented within the limitation periods in s.48(3) and s.111(2)(a). The judge found that the claimant had been dismissed summarily on 9 July 2019 following alleged detrimental treatment said to arise from protected disclosures made from February 2019, and that there were no allegations of detriment after dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | ERA 1996 detriment complaint under s.48(3). The tribunal held it was not presented in time, found that it was reasonably practicable to present it by the limitation date, and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | ERA 1996 dismissal complaint under s.111(2)(a). The tribunal held it was not presented in time, found that it was reasonably practicable to present it by the limitation date, and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- reasonably practicable test
- s.48(3) ERA 1996
- s.111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- Riley
- Dedman
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.