Case 3305115/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Pilworth v Rohan Designs Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305115/2024
- Decision date
- 8 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Pilworth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Mrs J Pilworth's unfair dismissal complaint because she had less than two years' continuous service with Rohan Designs Limited. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal also held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the Claimant's disability discrimination complaint because it had been brought outside the three-month time limit. It decided that it would not be just and equitable to extend time under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010, so those complaints were also dismissed. The final hearing was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Claimant had less than two years' continuous service, contrary to s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the complaint was brought outside the three-month time limit and the Tribunal held it would not be just and equitable to extend time under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
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.