Case 2500048/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P. Morgan v Gateshead Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500048/2023
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R.Smith Date
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P. Morgan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs P. Morgan brought a single unfair dismissal claim against Gateshead Council arising from her redundancy in July 2022. The tribunal found that the effective dismissal date was 20 or 21 July 2022 and that the claimant knew from dismissal that she had to bring a tribunal claim within three months, subject to the ACAS early conciliation extension. She entered early conciliation on 17 October 2022 and received her ACAS certificate on 28 November 2022, which meant the most favourable extended deadline was 28 December 2022.
The claim form was presented on 9 January 2023, about 12 days late. The claimant relied on illness, including covid from about 3 December to 10 December 2022, ongoing tiredness, long-standing back and menstrual problems, and the effect of caring for her son, who has type I diabetes. The tribunal accepted that she had some health challenges and that covid symptoms can be debilitating, but it was not satisfied on the evidence that those matters prevented her from presenting the claim in time.
Applying section 111(2) ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Signet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton, Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd, London Underground Ltd v Noel, Bodha v Hampshire AHA, Tanveer v East London Bus and Coach Company, and Kauser v Asda Stores Ltd, the tribunal found that the claimant knew of her rights, had access to a laptop and the internet, had not been misled by anyone, and could have sought help from family members. It also noted that this was a simple unfair dismissal claim requiring limited information. The tribunal therefore held that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, and alternatively that the claim was not lodged within such further period as was reasonable.
The claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the complaint was presented outside the time limit in section 111(2) ERA 1996 and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time; in any event it was not lodged within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Tanveer v East London Bus and Coach Company
- London Underground Ltd v Noel
- Bodha (Wishnudut) v Hampshire AHA
- Signet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
- Kauser v Asda Stores Ltd
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.