Case 2302161/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Rosemary Fregane v Oyster Bay Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302161/2023
- Decision date
- 26 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Rosemary Fregane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 15 April 2024, Employment Judge D Wright heard Ms Rosemary Fregane's claims against Oyster Bay Ltd. The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint under s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996 was presented outside the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. That complaint was therefore dismissed.
The tribunal also held that the pregnancy discrimination complaint under s.18 Equality Act 2010 was presented outside the applicable time limit. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so that complaint was dismissed as well. No further complaints remained standing, and the claim was dismissed in full. Reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint under s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so in time, and the automatic unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The pregnancy discrimination complaint under s.18 Equality Act 2010 was not presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- 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.