Case 2303238/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Cornelia Bonterre v Little Oaks Early Years Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303238/2022
- Decision date
- 27 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Cornelia Bonterre
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningCornelia Bonterre brought claims against Little Oaks Early Years Limited for unfair (constructive) dismissal and disability discrimination. The tribunal heard the matter at London South by CVP on 18 October 2023 before Employment Judge Rice-Birchall, with reasons given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it had not been presented within the applicable time limit and it found that it was reasonably practicable to do so within time. The judgment records the claim as an unfair (constructive) dismissal claim, but no merits finding on dismissal fairness was made because the limitation point was decisive.
The disability discrimination claim was also dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal found that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim of unfair (constructive) dismissal. It was held to be out of time because it was not presented within the applicable time limit, and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim was held to be out of time. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- 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.