Case 2301475/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Prendergast v Royal Borough of Greenwich Heard by video — 2020
- Case reference
- 2301475/2021
- Decision date
- 2 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Prendergast
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing heard by video on 15 July 2022, Employment Judge Corrigan decided that it was not reasonably practicable for Ms Prendergast’s unfair dismissal complaint to be presented in time. The tribunal found that the claim had in fact been submitted within such further period as it considered reasonable, so the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal also held that it was just and equitable to extend time for the age discrimination and race discrimination claims. On that basis, all of the claimant’s complaints could proceed. The judgment was given orally and did not record any merits findings or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal complaint to be submitted in time and that it was presented within such further period as the tribunal considered reasonable, so the complaint could proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Time was extended on a just and equitable basis, so the age discrimination complaint could proceed. | Other | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Time was extended on a just and equitable basis, so the race discrimination complaint could proceed. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.