Case 2201080/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Tucker v Rail Safety & Standards Board Limited Heard via Cloud Video Platform (London Central) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201080/2021
- Decision date
- 20 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Tucker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs B Tucker was employed as a Senior Project Manager from 1 October 2007 until her employment ended by redundancy on 17 July 2018. She contacted ACAS for early conciliation on 18 April 2019, received an EC certificate on 18 May 2019, and presented her ET1 on 8 March 2021. The preliminary hearing concerned whether her unfair dismissal, money and pregnancy discrimination claims were out of time.
For the unfair dismissal and money claims, the tribunal applied the reasonably practicable test and then the further reasonable period test. It accepted that it would not have been reasonably practicable to present the claim on 16 October 2019, the day she gave birth, or in the preceding couple of weeks. However, it found that she had not taken steps to start a tribunal claim beyond contacting ACAS, that she knew from 4 March 2019 that she would be having a baby around the limitation date, and that she could have used her redundancy appeal as the basis of a claim. The tribunal did not accept that the pregnancy-related medical issues, sleep deprivation, stress or lockdown prevented her from preparing or filing the claim, and it held that she had not shown it was reasonable to wait 17 months after expiry of the primary limitation period.
On the pregnancy discrimination complaint, the tribunal applied the just and equitable test and refused to extend time. It treated the delay of 17 months, or about two years if measured from the dismissal decision, as significant, and found that the reasons for delay were not compelling for the same reasons as in the unfair dismissal and money claims. It also noted that the cogency of evidence would be affected, including because some events dated back to 2018 and 2019 and two respondent witnesses no longer worked for the respondent. Although it observed that the redundancy selection process pre-dated the pregnancy notification and that the information was not shared with the decision-makers, it concluded that the excessive delay and inadequate explanation meant the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Time-limit ruling only: the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the statutory period and, alternatively, that it was not presented within such further reasonable period as the tribunal considered reasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers only to 'money claims' and does not specify the statutory basis, but the time-limit ruling was the same as for unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal held it would not be just and equitable to extend time, so it lacked jurisdiction to hear the pregnancy discrimination complaint. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable test
- further reasonable period test
- just and equitable test
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.