Case 2402023/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Lewis-Allcock v Lancasterian Special School — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402023/2019
- Decision date
- 25 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Lewis-Allcock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only limitation and jurisdiction. It held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996 was presented out of time, that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within time, and that the tribunal therefore did not have jurisdiction to hear that claim. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on that basis.
The tribunal also found that the sex discrimination claim was presented out of time, but it was just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore held that it had jurisdiction to hear the sex discrimination claim. This judgment did not decide the merits of that claim or record any award of remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Presented out of time, but the tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time and therefore had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The merits were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Sex | — |
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.