Case 2410783/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Potter v Heath Hall Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2410783/2019
- Decision date
- 29 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Representatives
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Potter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss B Potter brought proceedings against Heath Hall Ltd, heard at Liverpool before Employment Judge Horne. The judgment was given following a remote video hearing, and neither party objected to that format.
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim because it was presented after the expiry of the statutory time limit. It further found that the time limit could not be extended because it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented before the limit expired.
The written judgment records only that the claim was out of time; it does not set out separate findings on the underlying causes of action. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, and the written judgment notes that written reasons would only be provided on request.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written reasons do not separately analyse this head of claim; the tribunal held that the claim was presented after the statutory time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written reasons do not separately analyse this head of claim; the tribunal held that the claim was presented after the statutory time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written reasons do not separately analyse this head of claim; the tribunal held that the claim was presented after the statutory time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written reasons do not separately analyse this head of claim; the tribunal held that the claim was presented after the statutory time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.