Case 3200131/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Mathurin v Eunisure Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200131/2022
- Decision date
- 19 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Mathurin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 22 November 2022 before Tribunal Judge Overton, sitting as an Employment Judge, the tribunal considered Ms Mathurin's breach of contract and unauthorised deduction claims. It held that it was not reasonably practicable for her to present the ET1 within the original time limit and that the claim was presented within a reasonable further period, so the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear those claims.
The tribunal also held that it had jurisdiction to hear Ms Mathurin's discrimination claims by extending time on a just and equitable basis. The judgment does not identify the protected characteristic or characteristics relied on, and it does not reach any findings on the merits of any claim. No monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Preliminary jurisdiction ruling only. The tribunal held it had jurisdiction because it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her ET1 within the time limit and she had presented it within a reasonable further period. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary jurisdiction ruling only. The tribunal held it had jurisdiction because it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her ET1 within the time limit and she had presented it within a reasonable further period. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers generically to claims of discrimination under the Equality Act and holds that time should be extended on a just and equitable basis. It does not identify the protected characteristic(s) or determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- not reasonably practicable
- reasonable further period
- just and equitable to extend time
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.