Case 2417561/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Urmston v DCB Legal Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2417561/2020
- Decision date
- 28 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Urmston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss P Urmston brought complaints of unfair dismissal and age discrimination against DCB Legal Ltd. The hearing took place remotely on 25 May 2021 before Judge Brian Doyle. The tribunal dealt with the case as a preliminary time-limit issue rather than determining the merits of either complaint.
On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal found that it had not been presented in time under sections 111 and 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It concluded that it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented in time. On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint and dismissed it.
On the age discrimination complaint, the tribunal found that it had not been presented in time under sections 123 and 140B of the Equality Act 2010. It further found that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the age discrimination complaint and dismissed it. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented in time under sections 111 and 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented in time under sections 123 and 140B of the Equality Act 2010; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- sections 111 and 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- sections 123 and 140B Equality Act 2010
- 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.