Case 3300519/2019 · Employment Tribunal

In person. For the v Ms S Hobson, solicitor — 2019

Case reference: 3300519/2019
Decision date: 10 June 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
Venue: Bury St Edmunds

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person. For the

Respondent

Ms S Hobson, solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Laidler at Bury St Edmunds on 10 June 2019. The claimant, Mrs D Caviel, appeared in person and the respondent, Royal Mail Group Ltd, was represented by Ms S Hobson, Solicitor. The tribunal dealt with time limits before any merits hearing.

The unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable to have presented that claim in time, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction and the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

The sex discrimination complaint was also submitted out of time. The tribunal decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so that claim was also dismissed. In the alternative, the tribunal stated that if it had not dismissed the sex discrimination complaint it would have ordered a deposit of £50 as a condition of continuing with a claim it considered to have little reasonable prospects of success.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—
Sex discrimination	Submitted out of time; the tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time. In the alternative, if it had not been dismissed, the tribunal would have ordered a £50 deposit because the claim had little reasonable prospects of success.	Dismissed	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

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.

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.