Case 2419665/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Ms A Rumble - Counsel — 2021
- Case reference
- 2419665/2020
- Decision date
- 23 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the correct respondent was Simpson (Preston) Limited and, by agreement, all claims against Simpsons Skoda Limited were dismissed. The claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The remaining claims were not determined on the merits. The claim under sections 99 and 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, described as dismissal on account of the claimant's pregnancy, and the claim under sections 13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were both found to have been presented outside the statutory time limit. The tribunal held that it would have been reasonably practicable for those claims to have been brought in time, so it dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction.
The race harassment claim was also out of time. The tribunal held that it would not be just and equitable to extend time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, so that claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under sections 99 and 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, described as dismissal on account of the claimant's pregnancy; dismissed because it was out of time and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under sections 13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed because it was out of time and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Race harassment claim dismissed because it was out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the Tribunal held it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | 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.