Case 2602737/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Whitehall v Ulverscroft Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2602737/2020
- Decision date
- 27 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Whitehall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 4 May 2021 before Employment Judge P Britton sitting alone, the tribunal recorded that an earlier telephone case management hearing had already dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for lack of qualifying service. The notice-pay claim, pleaded as breach of contract, was conceded by the claimant's counsel to be not viable and was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The live issue was whether time should be extended for the age discrimination claim under s.123 Equality Act 2010. The claimant had been told in March 2020 that her employment was ending, said she believed there was a notice period, and gave evidence that she was shocked, financially worried, and affected by the death of her former husband from Covid-19. The tribunal accepted her explanation that she did not really turn her mind to litigation during that period and found the claim was about two weeks out of time, but concluded it was just and equitable to extend time.
In reaching that conclusion the tribunal referred to Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and to the balance of prejudice. It noted that the claimant sent a grievance on 6 July 2020, the respondent declined to engage on 13 July, she then obtained an ACAS certificate and presented the claim on 14 July 2020. The age discrimination claim was allowed to proceed; its merits were not determined at this hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at an earlier case management hearing for want of qualifying service, as recorded in the reasons for this preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for failure to pay notice pay. The claimant's counsel accepted at the hearing that it was not viable, and the tribunal dismissed it upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Preliminary limitation issue only. The tribunal found the claim was out of time by about two weeks but extended time on a just and equitable basis under s.123 Equality Act 2010; the merits were not determined at this hearing. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- s.140B Equality Act 2010
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.