Case 2404641/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs VV Gregory v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2404641/2024
- Decision date
- 24 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs VV Gregory
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the respondent's application that the ET1 had not been validly presented and/or had been presented out of time. The claimant said she emailed the ET1 on 30 November 2023 to addresses she and her son found online, and relied on an auto-reply from London South ET stating that the email had been safely received.
The Tribunal found that the claim was presented in time, although not by one of the prescribed methods in the Presidential Practice Direction of 2 March 2020. It accepted that the claimant believed the claim had been submitted, took account of her being a litigant in person and her evidence about anxiety and cognitive difficulties, and considered it just to waive the requirement.
The Tribunal concluded that the claimant's non-compliance with the prescribed delivery method should be waived under Rule 6, and that the Tribunal's earlier acceptance of the claim meant it should not now be rejected. The claim may continue, and case management orders were made separately.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment determined a preliminary issue about whether the claim was validly before the Tribunal and in time. It did not decide the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 83(2) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Presidential Practice Direction of 2 March 2020
- Rule 6 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Clark [2023] EWCA Civ 386
- Abel Estate Agent Ltd and ors v Reynolds 2025 EAT 6
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.