Case 2400853/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Stephens v Community Integrated Care — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400853/2022
- Decision date
- 4 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Stephens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages. It found that both claims had been presented outside the statutory time limits in sections 111 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal further found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to submit the claims in time. On that basis, it held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the case.
Both claims were therefore dismissed. The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the statutory time limit under s.111 ERA 1996 and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have been submitted in time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the statutory time limit under s.23 ERA 1996 and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have been submitted in time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.