Case 2200167/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Bolton v Ladbrokes Coral Group Ltd Heard via Teams (London Central) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2200167/2021
- Decision date
- 11 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Bolton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint was not determined on its merits. The tribunal recorded that the last day for presentation of the ET1 was 7 January 2021, but the claim form was not submitted until 11 January 2021. The issue for the hearing was whether it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.
The tribunal heard evidence about the conduct of the claimant’s solicitor, Ms A Gallagher, at Paul Doran Law. Ms Gallagher had a heavy workload, was working from home, was approaching maternity leave, had a house move and a period without broadband, experienced a family COVID-19 exposure and two sick days, and was waiting for the ACAS early conciliation certificate before updating her deadline spreadsheet. The tribunal accepted that there was sympathy for her circumstances, but found that the claimant’s matter had ‘fallen through the cracks’ towards the end of December 2020.
The tribunal found that the missed deadline was caused by insufficient checks and balances within the firm’s processes. It held that the claimant’s file was overlooked after Ms Gallagher received an email she thought did not include the attachment she was waiting for, and that once she had failed to update the spreadsheet the firm’s system would not have flagged the deadline approaching. The tribunal also found that Ms Gallagher’s pregnancy, self-isolation, sick days and lack of internet were not the reasons the deadline was missed.
Applying the reasonable practicability test, and noting the respondent’s reliance on the Dedman principle, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had failed to show it was not reasonably practicable to lodge the ET1 in time. Because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed because the ET1 was submitted out of time; the tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable test
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Dedman principle
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.