Case 3200024/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Garcia Alexander v Kane Houldt — 2026
- Case reference
- 3200024/2023
- Decision date
- 11 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Howden-Evans Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms J Houzer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Garcia Alexander
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit. It also found that it had been reasonably practicable to present the claim within that time limit.
On that basis, the claim was dismissed. The written judgment states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The short judgment states that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and was dismissed. The listing category identifies unfair dismissal, but the written judgment does not separately analyse individual claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The short judgment states that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and was dismissed. The listing category identifies public interest disclosure, but the written judgment does not separately analyse individual claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The short judgment states that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and was dismissed. The listing category identifies breach of contract, but the written judgment does not separately analyse individual claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable
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.