Case 2601783/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Kemp v L&R Medical UK Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601783/2019
- Decision date
- 22 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Kemp
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Kemp was employed by L&R Medical UK Ltd as an accounts manager from 7 February 2000 until 30 November 2018, when she was told that her dismissal on redundancy grounds was effective from that date. The tribunal found that the appeal was dismissed on 21 December 2018. It noted that the redundancy process and the correspondence were detailed, that Ms Kemp had severe anxiety around the time of redundancy, and that the tribunal was not making any assessment of the underlying merits of the dismissal or discrimination complaints.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 30 November 2018, so the section 111(2) ERA 1996 time limit expired on 28 February 2019. It accepted that Ms Kemp's anxiety meant it was not reasonably practicable for her to present a claim until mid-February 2019, but found that by then it had become reasonably practicable because she attended a trade fair and secured work with a former director's company. In any event, by the end of March 2019 she was using email and the internet, had knowledge of the time limits, and chose to prioritise her new job; presenting the claim on 13 June 2019 was therefore too late.
For direct age discrimination, the tribunal assumed, without deciding, that the dismissal and appeal could amount to a continuing act. On that basis, time ran from the appeal decision communicated on 21 December 2018 and expired on 20 March 2019. Taking account of the same factual background, the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 EqA 2010, relying in particular on the delay after Ms Kemp had recovered enough to act, the further delay after she knew of the time limit, and the additional delay after early conciliation ended. Both claims were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time; tribunal found the effective date of termination was 30 November 2018, the section 111(2) ERA 1996 limitation period expired on 28 February 2019, and it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier only until mid-February 2019. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed as out of time; tribunal assumed the dismissal and appeal could be treated as a continuing act, took 21 December 2018 as the latest date for time to run, and held it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 EqA 2010. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.97 ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
- Cosmeceuticals Ltd v Parkin
- West Midlands Co-operative Society Ltd v Tipton
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Norbert Dentressangle Logistics Ltd v Hutton
- s.123 EqA 2010
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
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.