Case 3200022/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Cameron v 1) Marston (Holdings) Limited 2) NSL Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3200022/2019
- Decision date
- 9 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Cameron
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mrs A Cameron, brought claims against Marston (Holdings) Limited and NSL Limited. At the hearing before Employment Judge G Tobin on 21 August 2019, the Tribunal first considered limitation. It found that the unfair dismissal claims were out of time under section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 and decided not to extend time, so those claims did not proceed on the merits.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the unfair dismissal claims were out of time under section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 and did not exercise discretion to extend time. The final order dismissed the claims in respect of item 1. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Claimant withdrew the claim for an outstanding redundancy payment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The Tribunal found the sex discrimination claims were out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010, but exercised discretion to allow the claim to proceed. The judgment did not determine the merits of this claim and instead directed that case management orders be issued. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 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.
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.