Case 2415261/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Short v Cragg & Roberts Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415261/2021
- Decision date
- 25 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Short
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Rice-Birchall recorded that the claimant's effective date of termination was 19 July 2021. The claimant's Employment Rights Act 1996 claims, identified as constructive unfair dismissal, holiday pay, notice pay and unlawful deductions from wages, were found to be out of time and were dismissed.
The tribunal held that it was just and equitable to allow the claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims to proceed. This decision did not determine the merits of those Equality Act claims; reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided in the record unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed as out of time; the tribunal recorded the effective date of termination as 19 July 2021. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed as out of time; no merits determination was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim dismissed as out of time; no merits determination was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as out of time; no merits determination was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Equality Act 2010 claims were allowed to proceed on a just and equitable basis; the merits were not determined in this decision. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable test
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.