Case 2601019/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Hunt v Derbyshire County Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601019/2018
- Decision date
- 15 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Hunt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs N Hunt was employed by Derbyshire County Council from 1 September 2014 to 21 October 2017. The tribunal found that her service was continuous across her Whitwell fixed-term contract, the later Whitwell supply arrangement, and her Brookfield appointment. It held that the short gaps in work in April and May 2016, and the longer gap over the summer of 2016, were covered by section 212(3)(b) ERA 1996 as temporary cessations of work. The Brookfield visits in summer 2016 were voluntary preparatory work and did not amount to a contract of employment.
The tribunal found that the Brookfield fixed-term paperwork was not unequivocal as to termination because it described 31 August 2017 as an approximate end date and also included notice provisions. It rejected the contention that employment ended on 31 August 2017 and held that it did not end on 30 September 2017 either. The effective date of termination was 21 October 2017, when the claimant received the letter enclosing her P45 and that communication was treated as unambiguous notice that her employment had ceased.
On time limits, the tribunal held that the automatic unfair dismissal complaint was out of time. It accepted that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present that complaint within the primary period, having regard to the health difficulties affecting her baby and her own mental health, but it decided that she did not present it within such further period as was reasonable. By contrast, for the pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint, the tribunal exercised the wider just and equitable discretion under section 123 Equality Act 2010. It accepted the claimant's explanation for the delay, found the delay after the impediment had eased to be relatively short, and found no material prejudice to the respondent, so that complaint was allowed to proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 99 ERA 1996 struck out because it was presented out of time and the tribunal found it had not been brought within such further period as was reasonable. The claimant had abandoned any ordinary unfair dismissal amendment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Complaint under section 18 Equality Act 2010 was time-barred on the face of the claim form, but the tribunal held it was presented within such other period as the tribunal thinks just and equitable and said it would proceed to a final hearing. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.210 ERA 1996
- s.211 ERA 1996
- s.212(3)(b) ERA 1996
- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable extension
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Curr v Marks and Spencer plc
- General of the Salvation Army v Dewsbury
- Ford v Warwickshire County Council
- Hussain v Acorn Independent College Ltd
- Welton v Deluxe Retail Ltd
- Kelly v Riveroak Associates Ltd
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.