Case 3202474/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Miss J Hartley v Genuine Cleaners Limited and 1 other — 2020

Case reference: 3202474/2019
Decision date: 14 August 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Moor Representation

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Miss J Hartley

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal recorded that the complaints against both respondents of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (notice pay) and unpaid holiday pay were presented outside the statutory time limits. It found that it was reasonably practicable to bring those claims within time, and therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to decide them.

The tribunal also dealt with the claimant's claim for a statutory redundancy payment. That claim did not succeed. No monetary remedy was awarded in the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the complaint was presented beyond the statutory time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so it had no jurisdiction to decide the claim.	Other	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The notice pay claim was found to be presented beyond the statutory time limit and the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to bring it within time, so it had no jurisdiction to decide it.	Other	—	—
Holiday pay	The unpaid holiday pay claim was found to be presented beyond the statutory time limit and the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to bring it within time, so it had no jurisdiction to decide it.	Other	—	—
Redundancy	The statutory redundancy payment claim did not succeed.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.