Case 2502402/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Doherty v We Pay [1] Terncove Limited [2] — 2020
- Case reference
- 2502402/2019
- Decision date
- 5 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Doherty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing by telephone on 5 October 2020, Employment Judge S Shore considered Miss L Doherty's claims of unfair dismissal and pregnancy and maternity discrimination against We Pay and Terncove Limited. The judgment records an effective date of termination of 31 October 2019 for the unfair dismissal claim and finds that the unfair dismissal claim was not presented within the three-month limit plus the early conciliation extension. The tribunal further held that it was reasonably practicable for that claim to have been presented in time.
For the pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim, the tribunal found that it was not presented within three months of the act complained of and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear either claim and struck both claims out in their entirety against both respondents.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented within the time limit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- three-month time limit
- early conciliation extension
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.