Case 3200319/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Babla v London Borough of Waltham Forest — 2019
- Case reference
- 3200319/2019
- Decision date
- 14 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T Babla
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered whether the Claimant's complaint was presented within the time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Claimant was dismissed on 25 October 2018, contacted ACAS on 4 February 2019, received an ACAS certificate on 8 February 2019, and presented her claim on 8 February 2019.
The Claimant relied on her caring responsibilities for her mother, her internal appeal, lack of union advice about tribunal time limits, financial concerns, and lack of knowledge of the time limit. The Tribunal noted that she had contacted the CAB, had access to an experienced non-specialist counsel, accepted that she was computer literate, and accepted that information about employment tribunal time limits was readily available online.
The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant was not reasonable in her ignorance of the time limit and had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint within three months. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaints and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment addressed jurisdiction under section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 and dismissed the complaint because it was presented out of time. Other listing categories are not separately analysed in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Marks & Spencer plc v Williams Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ 470
- Beasley v National Grid [2008] EWCA Civ 742
- Tesco Stores Ltd v Kayani UK/EAT/0128/16/DM
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.