Case 2418128/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Miles v Cheshire & Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 2418128/2018
- Decision date
- 12 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Miles
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Holmes in Manchester on 29 July 2019. The Tribunal dealt only with limitation issues and did not determine the substantive merits of either claim. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was found to have been presented out of time. The Tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the normal time limit, so the Tribunal could not extend time. That complaint was therefore dismissed.
The claimant's race discrimination complaint was also found to have been presented out of time, but the Tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time for presentation to 23 December 2018. The race discrimination claim was therefore allowed to proceed beyond the preliminary hearing stage.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint was presented out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, so the Tribunal could not extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal found the race discrimination complaint was presented out of time, but it was just and equitable to extend time for presentation to 23 December 2018, so the claim was allowed to proceed at the preliminary stage. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- 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.