Case 2500185/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Lees v The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 2500185/2020
- Decision date
- 23 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Lees
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held a public preliminary hearing to decide whether Mrs Lees's claims of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages, age discrimination and disability discrimination were in time. It found that, after taking the ACAS early conciliation process into account, the deadline for all claims was 9 September 2019, but the ET1 was not presented until 3 February 2020, almost five months late.
On the question of delay, the tribunal accepted that Mrs Lees had a hearing impairment and that her GP letter referred to stress, anxiety and depression, but it was not satisfied that those matters prevented her from presenting the claim form on time. It noted that Mr Stock had completed the form in January 2020 in two or three days, that the information needed for the ET1 was available in September 2019, and that neither Mrs Lees nor Mr Stock could give a meaningful explanation for why the claim was not submitted within the time limit.
Mrs Lees said she had wanted to reduce her working pattern to three days a week before retirement, but the tribunal recorded that her resignation letter of 25 April 2019 said she wished to retire and gave 9 May 2019 as her last day. No later correspondence withdrawing that resignation was produced. The tribunal concluded that the unfair dismissal and wages claims were not shown to be out of time because it was not reasonably practicable to present them within the 3-month limit, and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination claims. All claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing for being presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing for being presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing as more than three months out of time; the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing as more than three months out of time; the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not 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.