Case 2600339/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Simm v FMG Repair Services Limited David Bailey Isa Callow PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600339/2023
- Decision date
- 21 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Simm
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing at Leicester on 21 June 2023 before Employment Judge Camp. The claimant, Miss L Simm, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel, Mr David Jones. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided on written request within 14 days of the written record of the decision.
The tribunal found that neither of the claimant’s complaints was presented to the employment tribunal before the end of the primary time limit period of three months plus the extension for early conciliation. It was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaints to have been presented within that time limit period.
On that basis, the entire claim failed and was dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at preliminary hearing because it was not presented within the primary time limit and the tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed at preliminary hearing on the same limitation grounds. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- primary time limit period of 3 months plus extension for early conciliation
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.