Case 2411456/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Maynard v Park Homes (UK) Limited HELD AT: Manchester (via CVP) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411456/2023
- Decision date
- 25 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Maynard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs D Maynard brought claims against Park Homes (UK) Limited for unfair dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The Tribunal did not determine either claim on the merits. Instead, it held that the unfair dismissal claim had been presented outside the primary time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been submitted within time, so the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider it.
The Tribunal also dismissed the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim on time limit grounds. It found that those claims were presented outside the primary time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction: the claim was presented outside the primary time limit and it was reasonably practicable for it to have been submitted in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim dismissed because the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction: the claims were presented outside the primary time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- primary time limit
- 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.