Case 2400032/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Bristow v Wilmslow Kitchen Interiors Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2400032/2022
- Decision date
- 18 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Bristow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss M Bristow worked for Wilmslow Kitchen Interiors Limited from 31 March 2021 and was told by text on 9 August 2021 that her probation was unsuccessful and her employment was at an end. The tribunal found that no probation extension had been communicated to her, that the dismissal decision had been made before the planned review meeting that day, and that the respondent had not carried out a meaningful investigation before deciding to dismiss.
The claim form was presented on 4 January 2022 after early conciliation beginning on 20 October 2021 and ending with an ACAS certificate dated 30 November 2021. The tribunal held that all four complaints were out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented by 30 December 2021. For the unfair dismissal complaint, it treated the effective date of termination as 16 August 2021 because the claimant was entitled to one week’s statutory notice under section 86 ERA 1996, but the claim was still late. The notice pay, holiday pay and unlawful deduction claims were also found to be outside the relevant statutory time limits.
The tribunal rejected the claimant’s explanation that she delayed while waiting for outstanding payments and for the respondent’s position to be clarified after Mr Wynne’s bereavement. It found no illness, misrepresentation or other factor that made earlier presentation not reasonably practicable, and noted that the claimant had already engaged ACAS within the original period. It also held that the right relied on for the automatic unfair dismissal complaint, namely the right to be accompanied and to record the meeting, was not one of the rights listed in section 104(4) ERA 1996.
In comments on the merits, the tribunal said the claimant would have had good prospects of success on unfair dismissal had the claim been in time, and would likely have succeeded on notice pay, wages and holiday pay as well. No compensation was awarded because all complaints were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented as an automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 104 ERA 1996; dismissed as out of time. The tribunal also held that the asserted right to be accompanied / to record the meeting was not a right listed in section 104(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994; dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination; dismissed as out of time under the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid wages and commission; dismissed as out of time under section 23 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
21 references- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.104(4) ERA 1996
- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Sainsburys Supermarkets v Hitt
- Polkey v Dayton Services Ltd
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.13 ERA 1996
- ETs Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994
- Delaney v Staples
- Neary v Dean of Westminster
- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
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.