Case 1807250/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v S M Melksham — 2023
- Case reference
- 1807250/2022
- Decision date
- 24 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing in an appeal under section 24 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. By consent, the Appellant title was amended to FCC Environment (UK) Limited and the incorrectly named Respondent, Dr Sara Lumley, was removed from the proceedings. The hearing was before Employment Judge Lancaster by telephone on 24 March 2023.
The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the prohibition notice because it was not brought within 21 days of the issue of that notice, and it was accepted that it would have been reasonably practicable to have done so. The judgment therefore dismissed the appeal. Under rule 65 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the dismissal was not to take effect immediately but from 19 May 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Appeal against a prohibition notice dismissed because it was not brought within the 21-day limit and it would have been reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 24 Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
- rule 65 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- 21-day time limit
- reasonably practicable
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.