Case 2407291/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J McMahon v GLP (Prestwich) LLP t/a GLP Solicitors — 2025
- Case reference
- 2407291/2023
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
- Panel members
- Mr B Rowen, Ms V Worthington
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J McMahon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint and her breach of contract complaint relating to notice of termination. It found those complaints were not well-founded. No monetary remedy was awarded because none of the substantive claims succeeded.
The direct age discrimination complaint was dismissed on time limits grounds. The tribunal held that it had been brought out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The judgment also records that the respondent did not breach the duty to provide a written statement of any change to the main terms of employment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim related to notice of termination and was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found the claim was brought out of time and declined to extend time because it was not just and equitable to do so. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Other | The judgment records that the respondent did not breach the duty to provide a written statement of any change to the main terms of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.