Case 2406138/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Gerrard v Vivo Care Choices Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2406138/2019
- Decision date
- 12 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Hodgson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Gerrard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing held in Manchester on 17 September 2020, Employment Judge B Hodgson sat alone and determined that Ms A Gerrard's claims against Vivo Care Choices Limited were not within jurisdiction. The tribunal held that both the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims had been presented outside the statutory time limit.
The tribunal's reason for rejecting both claims was that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented within the requisite time limit. On that basis, the claims failed for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Failed for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented outside the statutory time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Failed for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented outside the statutory time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- statutory time limit
- reasonably practicable
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.