Case 2405477/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss I Dritsoula v Outburst Ltd PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 2405477/2020
- Decision date
- 8 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss I Dritsoula
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Judge Brian Doyle sitting alone at Manchester by remote video hearing on 7 December 2020. The tribunal considered limitation and jurisdiction only. It held that the claimant's unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal complaints were not presented within 3 months of the effective date of termination, and that it was reasonably practicable to present them in time or within a reasonable period thereafter.
The tribunal also held that the claimant's discrimination complaint was not presented within 3 months of the date of the act or acts complained of, and that it was not otherwise just and equitable to extend the time limit. The extracted judgment does not identify the protected characteristic for that discrimination complaint.
In addition, the tribunal said it did not otherwise have jurisdiction to consider the claimant's complaints in respect of personal injury or human rights. On that basis, the claim was dismissed in full.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint was not presented within 3 months of the effective date of termination, and that it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time or within a reasonable period thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the wrongful dismissal complaint was not presented within 3 months of the effective date of termination, and that it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time or within a reasonable period thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers only to a complaint of discrimination and says it was not presented within 3 months of the act or acts complained of, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The extracted text does not specify the protected characteristic. | 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.