Case 2408617/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Amy Bowers v Creche-n-Co Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408617/2022
- Decision date
- 13 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Amy Bowers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Manchester on 20 June 2023 before Employment Judge Warren, the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Amy Bowers's unfair dismissal claim under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996, her automatic unfair dismissal claim connected with pregnancy under sections 99(1) and 99(3)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996, or her claim for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars under sections 1 and 11 Employment Rights Act 1996. Those claims were found to have been presented out of time, and the Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time.
The Tribunal also recorded claims of sex discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 and pregnancy discrimination under section 18 Equality Act 2010. It found that those claims had also been presented out of time, but that it was just and equitable to extend time, so the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear them.
The judgment is limited to these jurisdiction and limitation rulings. It does not determine the merits of the sex discrimination or pregnancy discrimination claims, and it records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996. Tribunal held it was brought out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim connected with pregnancy under sections 99(1) and 99(3)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996. Tribunal held it was brought out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars under sections 1 and 11 Employment Rights Act 1996. Tribunal held it was brought out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Section 13 Equality Act 2010 claim. Tribunal found it was presented out of time, but it was just and equitable to extend time so the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear it; merits were not decided. | Other | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Section 18 Equality Act 2010 claim. Tribunal found it was presented out of time, but it was just and equitable to extend time so the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear it; merits were not decided. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 99(1) and 99(3)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 1 and 11 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable
- 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.