Case 2301032/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Susan Ellis v London Borough of Bexley — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301032/2021
- Decision date
- 21 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Burge Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Susan Ellis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the claim form was presented on 16 March 2021 after the three-month limit had expired on 21 January 2021. It found that the effective date of termination was 22 October 2020, that the ACAS conciliation period did not extend the unfair dismissal time limit on the facts found, and that it was reasonably practicable for Mr Squires, who was conducting the matter for the claimant, to have checked the time limit or asked the legal adviser. The tribunal relied on s.111 ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Bodha and Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint was presented outside the three-month time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis for the age discrimination claim; the merits were not determined at this hearing. | Other | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis for the disability discrimination claims referred to in the judgment as sections 15, 20, 21 and 26 Equality Act 2010 claims; the merits were not determined at this hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The direct disability discrimination complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Other | The health and safety complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal; the written judgment does not specify the statutory basis. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The redundancy complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. |
Legal tests applied
11 references- reasonably practicable
- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- just and equitable
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.140B Equality Act 2010
- Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority
- Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
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.