Case 2201836/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Michael (in person) For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201836/2023
- Decision date
- 26 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen Appearances
- Venue
- London Central Tribunal
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Michael (in person) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Cowen at London Central Tribunal on 26 October 2023. The judgment records that the Claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and 'bullying' were dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. No liability findings were made on the merits of those claims.
The Claimant's age discrimination claim was also dismissed. The Tribunal found that it had been issued out of time and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. The judgment does not record any award because the claim did not succeed.
The breach of contract claim was dismissed as out of time as well. The Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable to present that claim within time, and on that basis it was dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary remedy or apportionment between claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim described as 'bullying' was dismissed because the Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The age discrimination claim was issued out of time; the Tribunal refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was issued out of time; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable basis
- 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.