Case 2301995/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Bookham v CBRE Managed Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301995/2022
- Decision date
- 23 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
- Venue
- Croydon via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Bookham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the time limit for the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant had engaged in early conciliation and presented the claim form 19 days late. She said she knew of the time limit but had made an IT error by pressing save and continue rather than submit.
The claimant also relied on mental health problems. The Tribunal noted a fit note from November 2021 and a GP letter from September 2022, but found there was no medical evidence from May or June 2022, the relevant period for presentation of the claim.
The Tribunal was not persuaded to extend time. It found there was no satisfactory explanation for the further 19-day delay after early conciliation ended, and rejected the claim form under s.111 ERA as presented out of time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim form was rejected under s.111 ERA because it was presented out of time; the judgment did not adjudicate the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.