Case 2406924/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S McGechen v Denholm Logistics Group Limited HELD AT: Manchester (in public; CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2406924/2024
- Decision date
- 23 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S McGechen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal decided a preliminary time-limit issue. It held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to submit her unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and holiday pay claims within the primary time limit. On that basis, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear those claims and dismissed them.
For the age discrimination and sex discrimination claims, the Tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time within the meaning of s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. Those claims were permitted to proceed to a full hearing. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to submit this claim within the primary time limit and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The Tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to submit this claim within the primary time limit and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to submit this claim within the primary time limit and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The Tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds and stated that this claim may proceed to a full hearing; the merits were not determined. | Other | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The Tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds and stated that this claim may proceed to a full hearing; the merits were not determined. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- 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.