Case 2407390/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H S Anderson v Marks and Spencer plc — 2026
- Case reference
- 2407390/2024
- Decision date
- 20 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H S Anderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant's effective date of termination was 10 August 2024. The time limit for presenting the unfair dismissal complaint, and the complaints of direct age discrimination and discrimination arising from disability, was 9 November 2024.
The claimant began ACAS Early Conciliation on 18 November 2024, received the certificate on 20 November 2024, and submitted the ET1 on 8 December 2024. The Tribunal found that all complaints were out of time. It determined that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to submit the unfair dismissal complaint in time, so that complaint was dismissed. It also determined that it would be just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination complaints, which were to be determined at a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the ET1 was submitted out of time and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to submit within the prescribed time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The Tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds; the complaint was to be determined at a final hearing from 7 April 2026 to 10 April 2026. | Other | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds; the complaint was to be determined at a final hearing from 7 April 2026 to 10 April 2026. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 of the 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.