Case 3201883/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Smitherman v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3201883/2021
- Decision date
- 11 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Smitherman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned time limits and jurisdiction. The claimant was dismissed in December 2020 and presented her claim on 12 April 2021. The Tribunal found that the primary limitation date for the unfair dismissal and discriminatory dismissal complaints was 7 March 2021, and that the money claims were also out of time.
For unfair dismissal, holiday pay, notice pay and arrears of wages, the Tribunal accepted that the claimant was distressed after dismissal and could not have issued a claim immediately in December. It found, however, that by February and March 2021 she was able to correspond with the respondent, contact ACAS, and function with assistance from her mother. The Tribunal concluded that the substantial reason the claims were not issued in time was that the claimant was focused on her appeal and reinstatement, not that it was not reasonably practicable to issue the claims. Those claims were struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
For disability discrimination, the Tribunal found that the claim was out of time but that it was just and equitable to extend time. It took account of the claimant's physical and mental impairments, other difficulties during the period, her continuing belief that the dismissal related to disability, the length of the delay, the absence of evidence that the delay affected the respondent's ability to respond, and the prompt issue of the claim after the solicitor reminded the claimant's mother. Case management orders were made for clarification of the disability discrimination complaints.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Issued outside the statutory time limit; the Tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and that it had no jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Issued outside the relevant statutory time limit; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment described this as a failure to pay notice pay. It was issued outside the relevant statutory time limit and struck out for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment described this as arrears of pay or unlawful deduction of wages. It was issued outside the relevant statutory time limit and struck out for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination complaints were also out of time, but the Tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The merits were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- Section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations
- Article 7 Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Section 111(1) and (2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- London International College v Sen
- Shultz v Esso Petroleum
- Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- Section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- Section 33 Limitation Act 1980
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
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.