Case 2402909/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Spencer v Southway Housing Trust Manchester Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402909/2021
- Decision date
- 31 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Spencer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Batten sitting alone on 17 March 2022. The tribunal did not decide the merits of the claimant's complaints; it decided time limit and jurisdiction questions so that the remaining claims could proceed to a final hearing.
On the constructive unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal found that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the complaint within the section 111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 time limit. It also found that the complaint was presented within a reasonable period after the expiry of that limit. The tribunal therefore held that it had jurisdiction under section 111(2)(b) to hear the constructive unfair dismissal complaint.
On the sex discrimination complaint, the tribunal found that it was presented outside the section 123(1) Equality Act 2010 time limit. However, the tribunal decided that it was just and equitable to extend time for that complaint. The result was that the tribunal accepted jurisdiction to hear the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination at a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the constructive unfair dismissal complaint within the section 111(2)(a) time limit, but that it was presented within a reasonable period thereafter, so jurisdiction was accepted under section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found the sex discrimination complaint was presented outside the section 123(1) Equality Act 2010 time limit, but it was just and equitable to extend time, so the complaint could proceed to a final hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- not reasonably practicable
- reasonable period thereafter
- s.111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- 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.