Case 2404939/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Fitzgerald v Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP — 2021
- Case reference
- 2404939/2019
- Decision date
- 21 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Fitzgerald
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing at Manchester by CVP on 8 December 2020, Employment Judge Rice-Birchall held that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear Mrs Fitzgerald's claims because they were out of time. The claims were therefore dismissed.
The written record states that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No order for costs was made, and the judgment does not record any merits findings on the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment says the tribunal had no jurisdiction because the claims were out of time; it does not set out separate merits findings for this head. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment says the tribunal had no jurisdiction because the claims were out of time; it does not set out separate merits findings for this head. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The written judgment says the tribunal had no jurisdiction because the claims were out of time; it does not set out separate merits findings for this head. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment says the tribunal had no jurisdiction because the claims were out of time; it does not set out separate merits findings for this head. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment says the tribunal had no jurisdiction because the claims were out of time; it does not set out separate merits findings for this head. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.