Case 2501223/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Consiglio v Department for Work and Pensions — 2020
- Case reference
- 2501223/2020
- Decision date
- 24 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Consiglio
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was summarily dismissed on 2 August 2019 and presented her ET1 on 24 June 2020. The Tribunal found that the primary limitation period for an unfair dismissal complaint expired on 1 November 2019 and considered whether it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented by then.
The Tribunal accepted the Claimant's uncontested evidence that she had been subjected to a violent assault on 21 August 2019 and had experienced physical and mental injuries, including PTSD. However, it found there was insufficient evidence that those matters made it not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, noting that during the relevant period she had applied for a job, attended an interview, and made a self-referral for counselling.
The Tribunal also found that, even if it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim by 1 November 2019, the further delay until 24 June 2020 was not reasonable. It found that the Claimant had support from family and victim support, had been able to prepare and submit an internal appeal in January 2020, and ought to have known of her rights. The Tribunal concluded that pending criminal proceedings and the Claimant's wish to obtain CPS evidence did not prevent her from presenting an unfair dismissal claim. The claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the claim was presented outside the three-month time limit, it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time, and the Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction under section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Shultz v Esso Petroleum Co Limited
- Wall's Meat Company Limited v Khan
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.