Case 3303421/2022 · Employment Tribunal
did not attend For the v Miss Pryce, Solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303421/2022
- Decision date
- 6 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal listed the hearing as a preliminary issue on time limits. It recorded the respondent's case that the claimant resigned on 6 September 2021, and noted that the claimant's claim was presented on 16 March 2022. The tribunal calculated that the unfair dismissal limitation period expired on 5 December 2021, and that Acas early conciliation extended the deadline to 6 February 2022.
The claimant had requested a postponement on the basis that the respondent's bundle had been provided late and that disclosure was incomplete. That application was refused. The claimant did not attend the hearing and could not be contacted, so the tribunal decided to proceed in her absence after noting that she had received adequate notice and had not sent written representations.
On the evidence before it, the tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the claim had been filed 38 days late and that the claimant did not have a reasonable excuse. It concluded that the constructive unfair dismissal claim, and the assumed whistleblowing claim, were out of time and that the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear them. The judgment then states that the claim is struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal treated the unfair dismissal claim as a claim of constructive unfair dismissal and found it was presented 38 days after the limitation period expired. It held the claimant had not shown a reasonable excuse and that the claim was out of time, so it was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment says that, for the purposes of the hearing, the tribunal assumed the claimant also pursued a whistleblowing claim. It found that claim was also out of time for the same reason and struck it out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.