Case 2307188/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Carter v MAC Cosmetics — 2021
- Case reference
- 2307188/2020
- Decision date
- 8 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
- Venue
- London South Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Carter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on the respondent’s time-limit challenge to Miss S Carter’s unfair dismissal claim. The claimant had presented her claim on 22 October 2020. The tribunal found that her employment ended either on 29 May 2020 or 31 May 2020, so the primary three-month time limit expired on 28 August 2020 or 30 August 2020. ACAS early conciliation ran from 25 July 2020 to 25 August 2020, and on the tribunal’s most generous calculation the extended deadline would have been 25 September 2020.
The claimant did not attend the hearing. The tribunal made telephone and email enquiries, then proceeded in her absence under rule 47. It considered her written explanation from 7 December 2020 and her witness statement, which said she believed she could not apply to the tribunal until after the outcome of her internal appeal, and that communication with the respondent had been delayed and fragmented. The tribunal found that she had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.
In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal noted that the claimant had contacted ACAS more than two months before expiry of the primary limitation period and considered it implausible that she had not received advice about time limits during that process. It also noted that she had referred to legal advice during the appeal hearing on 5 August 2020. The tribunal held that ignorance of time limits did not assist her on these facts, and that the ongoing internal appeal was not itself a barrier because she actually presented her tribunal claim on 22 October 2020 before the appeal outcome was issued on 16 November 2020. The claim was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the tribunal also said there was no basis to find reasonable prospects of success given the s.111 issue.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the claim was presented outside the time limit in s.111 ERA 1996 and the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- rule 37(1) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 47 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer & Anor v Southend on Sea Council
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
- Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority
- Inchcape Retail Ltd v Shelton
- Beasley v National Grid Electricity Transmission
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.