Case 2406540/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Stone v John Lewis plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 2406540/2019
- Decision date
- 4 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Stone
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and pregnancy discrimination contrary to section 18 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because it was presented outside the time limit in section 111 and it had been reasonably practicable for it to have been presented within time.
The tribunal found the pregnancy discrimination complaint was outside the period in section 123(1)(a), but within a further period which it considered just and equitable under section 123(1)(b). That complaint was allowed to proceed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because it was presented outside the section 111 time limit and it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal decided only the limitation point for the pregnancy discrimination complaint. It found the complaint was presented outside the section 123(1)(a) period but within a further period considered just and equitable under section 123(1)(b), so it could proceed. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable
- 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.