Case 2501670/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Wakelam v Ravensworth Golf Club — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501670/2022
- Decision date
- 5 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Wakelam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public preliminary hearing on 28 March 2023, the claimant withdrew her disability discrimination complaint. The tribunal recorded that the claim was dismissed pursuant to Rule 52. The claimant had previously indicated that she wished to pursue an indirect disability discrimination claim said to arise from the respondent's decision to evict her from tied accommodation and from her partner's disability.
The only live issue was whether the unfair dismissal complaint was in time under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 3 July 2022, that ACAS early conciliation began on 8 August 2022 and that the extended time limit expired on 5 October 2022. The claim was presented on 7 October 2022.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant believed time ran from the date she was told that her internal appeal had been unsuccessful, but it found that belief to be mistaken. It found that the North East Law Centre had not given her the incorrect advice she said it had, and in any event any mistake by a skilled adviser would have been attributed to her under Dedman. It also found that the claimant did not make reasonable enquiries about the time limit, either of the CAB, ACAS or online, and that her late presentation was caused by her own mistaken understanding of the deadline.
Applying the reasonable practicability test under section 111, and referring to the authorities it cited, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the unfair dismissal complaint in time. The tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant pursued an Equality Act 2010 disability discrimination complaint, initially described as an indirect disability discrimination claim based on the respondent's decision to evict her from tied accommodation and on her partner's disability. She withdrew the complaint during the public preliminary hearing on 28 March 2023, and the tribunal recorded that it was dismissed pursuant to Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the complaint was presented out of time. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim within the extended time limit, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- reasonable practicability
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Riley v Tesco Stores Limited & Anr
- Wall's Meat Ltd v Khan
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Bhoda (Vishnudut) v Hampshire Area Health Authority
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.