Case 2302034/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Yule – Claimant’s stepmother in law For the v Mr Holloway - Counsel — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302034/2021
- Decision date
- 15 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Yule – Claimant’s stepmother in law For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 15 June 2022, Employment Judge Martin dealt with Mr M Andrews' claims against Pets At Home Ltd. The tribunal recorded that the hearing took place by CVP and that the respondent was represented by counsel. No lay members are listed in the judgment.
The tribunal found that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the statutory time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was struck out.
The tribunal made the same finding in relation to the claimant's disability discrimination claim. It found that the discrimination claim was presented outside the statutory time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, so that claim was also struck out. The judgment does not record any monetary award or further remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claim was presented outside the statutory time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held the disability discrimination claim was presented outside the statutory time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- statutory time limit
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.