Case 2500530/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Stephanie Brown Mrs Vivian Brown Mrs Julie Richardson v SGS United Kingdom Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500530/2024
- Decision date
- 24 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Stephanie Brown Mrs Vivian Brown Mrs Julie Richardson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard three unfair dismissal claims brought by Ms Stephanie Brown, Mrs Vivian Brown and Mrs Julie Richardson against SGS United Kingdom Limited on 24 June 2024 at Newcastle CFCTC. Employment Judge Arullendran gave judgment orally at the hearing, and no written reasons were requested at the hearing.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claims were not presented within the applicable time limit. It also found that it was reasonably practicable for the claims to have been presented in time. On that basis, each unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The written record does not include further findings on the merits of the dismissals or any monetary remedy. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so, so it was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so, so it was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so, so it was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable
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.