Case 2501649/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K McAndrew v Cedarwood Trust and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501649/2023
- Decision date
- 24 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs K McAndrew
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs K McAndrew brought unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, and whistleblowing detriment claims against Cedarwood Trust and Wayne Dobson. The matter was heard remotely by video before Employment Judge Arullendran on 24 January 2024. The judgment records that each claim was out of time.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that it had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. The same limitation finding was made in respect of the automatic unfair dismissal claim and the whistleblowing detriment claim. No findings on the substantive merits of the dismissal or detriment allegations were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was not presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so, and dismissed the claim on that basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The automatic unfair dismissal claim was not presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so, and dismissed the claim on that basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The whistleblowing detriment claim was not presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so, and dismissed the claim on that basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.