Case 2206483/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Pearce v Ministry of Defence Police — 2023
- Case reference
- 2206483/2022
- Decision date
- 26 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Appearances For
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Pearce
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary judgment on limitation issues heard at London Central by CVP on 23 May 2023 before Tribunal Judge McGrade. The claimant, Miss L Pearce, advanced an automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 and a detriment claim for protected disclosures under section 47B ERA 1996. The tribunal held that both of those claims were out of time, found that it was reasonably practicable to present them in time, and dismissed them.
The judgment also recorded victimisation claims. Those were found to be out of time, but the tribunal decided it was just and equitable to extend time, so they were allowed to proceed to a full merits hearing. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment because the decision did not determine liability on the merits of the remaining claims and addressed only the time-limit issues.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim of automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found it was out of time, that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for detriments for making protected disclosures under section 47B ERA 1996. The tribunal found it was out of time, that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
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.