Case 3302990/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v McDermott v Priory Medical Practice — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302990/2023
- Decision date
- 12 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heathcote
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Watford CVP hearing on 12 September 2023, Employment Judge Heathcote sat alone. Ms V McDermott appeared in person and Priory Medical Practice was represented by Mr M Wishart, Consultant, Peninsular.
The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claimant's claims because they had been presented out of time. It found that the claimant had failed to show that it was not reasonably practicable to submit her claims within the statutory time limit.
The claims were therefore dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type inferred from the case listing; the written judgment dealt with the claims generically and dismissed them as presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type inferred from the case listing; the written judgment dealt with the claims generically and dismissed them as presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- not reasonably practicable
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.