Case 2406977/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Parkinson v Yell Sales Limited HELD AT: Manchester (in public; CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2406977/2024
- Decision date
- 17 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Parkinson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered, at a public preliminary hearing, whether the claimant's claims had been presented within time and whether time should be extended. It found that all claims were submitted outside the primary time limit.
For the whistleblowing detriment and dismissal claims, the Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to submit the claims within the primary time limit, so it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed them. For the Equality Act claims, including age discrimination, perceived disability discrimination, sex harassment and direct sex discrimination, the Tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The Tribunal recorded that it made no liability findings on the allegations. It noted the length of the delay, the absence of positive steps to progress the claims, the claimant's explanation based on ill health, and prejudice to the respondent when concluding that the claims should not proceed.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes claims of whistleblowing detriment and dismissal. They were dismissed because they were outside the primary time limit and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to submit them in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The listed dismissal issues concerned alleged breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and resignation in response, but the claim was dismissed on jurisdictional time-limit grounds without liability findings. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The age discrimination claim was dismissed because it was outside the primary time limit and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination claim was pleaded as perceived disability discrimination related to perceived dwarfism. It was dismissed as out of time, with no liability findings. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The sex harassment allegations were dismissed because the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. The judgment records that no liability findings were made. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The same incidents were pleaded in the alternative as direct sex discrimination. The claim was dismissed on jurisdictional time-limit grounds. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Peninsula Business Service Limited v Baker [2017] ICR 714
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.