Case 2603208/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Cherrington v Queen Street Neighbourhood Resource Centre — 2019
- Case reference
- 2603208/2019
- Decision date
- 28 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Cherrington
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss D Cherrington brought claims of disability discrimination and detriment for making a protected disclosure against Queen Street Neighbourhood Resource Centre. The tribunal heard the case as a preliminary issue on limitation and the respondent-name objection. It found that employment ended on 30 June 2019, so the ordinary three-month limitation period expired on 29 September 2019, and the ET1 was presented on 5 November 2019. The protected disclosure claim was also out of time because the last act complained of, apart from dismissal, was on 7 August 2018.
The claimant said she had been ignorant of tribunal time limits and was too unwell to act sooner. The tribunal rejected both explanations. It found that she was intelligent and articulate, that during the limitation period she dealt with her ESA appeal, applied for and obtained other work, and gave no medical evidence showing incapacity. On that evidence, the tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for the whistleblowing claim to be presented in time only in the sense that the claimant had not shown any basis for an extension, and the claim therefore fell outside jurisdiction.
For the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal applied the just and equitable extension discretion under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and cited Robertson v Bexley Community Centre and British Coal Corporation v Keeble. It concluded that the delay was avoidable, that the claimant had chosen to prioritise other matters during the limitation period, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The respondent-name point was dealt with separately under rule 12(1)(f) and rule 12(2A) of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013; although the ET1 named 'Hugh Warner' in box 2.1, the tribunal held this was a minor error because the correct respondent was identified elsewhere on the form and on the EC certificate. The final judgment dismissed both claims because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The underlying claim was pleaded as disability discrimination. The tribunal recorded that the ET1 named 'Hugh Warner' in box 2.1 and Queen Street Neighbourhood Resource Centre in box 2.2, but it treated the name error as minor and did not reject the claim on that basis. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claim was for detriment as a result of making a protected disclosure under PIDA. The tribunal held it was out of time and that there was no reasonable practicability basis to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 48 ERA 1996
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- rule 12(1)(f) ET Rules 2013
- rule 12(2A) ET Rules 2013
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre (2003)
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble (1997)
- Giny v SNA Transport Limited (2016)
- E.ON Control Solutions Limited v Caspall (2019)
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.