Case 2302565/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Lewis v Greggs plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302565/2023
- Decision date
- 20 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Perry Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Lewis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant clarified at the start of the hearing that she was not bringing a discrimination claim and that her sole claim was unfair dismissal. The hearing was limited to whether the claim had been presented in time and, if not, whether time should be extended under section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal found that the Effective Date of Termination was 2 December 2022. The Claimant contacted ACAS in time and first attempted to submit a claim by post on 4 May 2023, but the Tribunal found that this attempt did not include the prescribed ET1 form. The valid claim form was received and accepted on 18 May 2023, more than a month after the ACAS early conciliation certificate.
The Tribunal found that the late presentation was not caused by any ongoing internal process, lack of knowledge of the time limit, lack of knowledge of the ET1 form, or ill health. It found that the Claimant had left submission until late in the day and had failed to use the prescribed form, which was an oversight that did not make timely presentation not reasonably practicable. The Tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: it was not presented within the applicable time limit when it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Software Box v Gannon
- Adams v British Telecommunications
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.