Case 3300744/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Jeromson, Lay Representative. For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300744/2021
- Decision date
- 1 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Wood Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss D Jeromson, Lay Representative. For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Angela Sivyer brought an unfair dismissal claim against Asda Stores Limited. The tribunal found that her employment ended on 23 October 2020, when she was dismissed face to face and knew she had been dismissed on that date. It accepted that later letters dated 23 October 2020 and 12 November 2020 were sent, and found that the second letter was not received until 17 November 2020, but held that those letters did not change the legal effective date of dismissal.
The respondent argued that the three-month limitation period expired on 22 January 2021. The claimant relied on her mental health after dismissal, including a GP letter dated 23 November 2020 recording a consultation on 26 October 2020 and a diagnosis of mixed anxiety and depression. The tribunal accepted that diagnosis, but found there was no independent evidence about the severity of her symptoms around the end of the limitation period, and no medical evidence covering January 2021.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's evidence that she had been almost catatonic and unable to manage day to day activities to the extent alleged. It noted that she had attended the disciplinary hearing on 23 October 2020, chased up correspondence on 8 November 2020, participated in the appeal process, attended the appeal hearing on 23 November 2020, and engaged with ACAS early conciliation. It also noted that she completed and submitted the claim form on 25 January 2021.
Applying the statutory limitation test and the authorities cited, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, and in particular that the claimant could have brought the claim in November 2020 and had not shown any significant worsening of her condition in the final weeks of the limitation period. The claim was therefore dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, so it did not reach the merits of the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- not reasonably practicable test
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Walls' Meat Co Ltd v Khan
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.