Case 2206355/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms R Howells (In-house legal adviser) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206355/2021
- Decision date
- 7 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coen
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central on 28 February 2022 before Employment Judge Coen sitting alone. The claimant, Ms Aisling Sexton, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms R Howells, in-house legal adviser for Grosvenor Casinos Ltd.
The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim or her claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. The deductions claim was described as relating to holiday pay and furlough pay. In each instance, the reason given was that the claims had not been presented within the applicable time limits.
The judgment therefore records that both claims were dismissed. No remedy was awarded and the written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, with written reasons not to be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal’s note.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim because it was not presented within the applicable time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unauthorised deductions from wages claim, which related to holiday pay and furlough pay, because it was not presented within the applicable time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.