Case 3302956/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J BUCHTOVA v GPO Logistics UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302956/2023
- Decision date
- 5 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J BUCHTOVA
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal did not reach the merits of the dismissal and whistleblowing complaints. It held that the unfair dismissal claim, together with the automatically unfair dismissal and detriment claims based on protected disclosure, were presented outside the applicable time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present them in time, so those claims were dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the disability discrimination and victimisation claim because it was not presented within the applicable time limit. It decided it was not just and equitable to extend time. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented outside the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Covers the automatically unfair dismissal and detriment claims based on protected disclosure. The tribunal held these were not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed as not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed as not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.