Case 2201550/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Annette Lindley v Capita Business Services Limited AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201550/2021
- Decision date
- 11 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Annette Lindley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Leeds on 11 March 2022, Employment Judge Lancaster considered whether time should be extended so that complaints dating from on or before the claimant's dismissal on 11 September 2011 could proceed. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by a legal executive.
The tribunal held that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant successfully arguing that time should be extended. On that basis, the claim was struck out. The extracted record does not contain any findings on the underlying merits of the complaints, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying complaint types. At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal struck out the claim because there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant successfully arguing for an extension of time for complaints dating from on or before her dismissal on 11 September 2011. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rules 37, 53(1)(c) and 54 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.