Case 2500490/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Taylor v North Yorkshire County Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500490/2021
- Decision date
- 18 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered the respondent's time limit objection to the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and an apparent complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages.
The tribunal found that neither complaint had been presented within the three-month period required by sections 111(2) and 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It was satisfied that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented both complaints within time.
Because the claims were out of time and the reasonably practicable extension did not apply, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider them and dismissed both complaints.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was presented out of time and the tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present it within the statutory time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment described the second complaint as 'apparently' under section 23 ERA 1996. It was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present it within the statutory time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 111(2) and 23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test
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.