Case 2201353/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Colm Kelly of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 2201353/2022
Decision date: 2 February 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Representation For

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr Colm Kelly of Counsel For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms S. Borozna worked for CBH Wealth UK Ltd from 1 September 2018 until her effective date of termination on 23 September 2021. The claim form was presented on 21 March 2022, after the extended primary limitation period expired on 2 February 2022, so the claims were 47 days late. The tribunal therefore had to decide whether it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time and, if so, whether they were brought within a further reasonable period.

The claimant relied on illness and on advice said to have been given by her psychiatrist not to engage with legal proceedings because of severe depressive disorder. The tribunal accepted that she had depression and anxiety, but found that the written medical evidence was directed principally to family court proceedings, especially the need to postpone a November 2021 hearing and to complete family finance forms. It found no clear written advice in October or November 2021 that she should not instruct lawyers or engage with employment tribunal proceedings, and noted that the first written record expressly stating she should not instruct lawyers appeared in a letter dated 14 June 2022.

The tribunal also found that the claimant remained capable of a range of business and legal activity during the relevant period. It found that she was capable of instructing solicitors on 23 September 2021, meeting a potential client at the respondent’s offices on 12 October 2021, liaising about an introducer agreement, travelling to Geneva in December 2021, and, by 15 December 2021, telling Professor Libby that she could deal with lawyers and papers and was setting up a business. On that basis, it concluded that it was reasonably practicable for her to prepare and present the claim form before 2 February 2022.

Because the tribunal found the claims were presented outside the primary time limit and that the reasonably practicable exception was not made out, it did not go on to consider a further reasonable period. All claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and no remedy was awarded.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Dismissed as presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the limitation period and therefore had no jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Unfair dismissal by reason of alleged protected disclosure was dismissed on the same out-of-time / no jurisdiction basis.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Detriment by reason of alleged protected disclosure was dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found the claim was not saved by the not reasonably practicable exception.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	Breach of contract claim covering holiday pay and expenses was dismissed as presented out of time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

14 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.