Case 3305543/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305543/2024
- Decision date
- 30 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grahame Anderson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 18 June 2025 before Employment Judge Grahame Anderson, the tribunal allowed the Claimant's application to amend her case to include a claim of unfair (constructive) dismissal. The written judgment does not record a merits decision on that amended dismissal claim; it only records the amendment ruling.
The Claimant's harassment claim was dismissed following a withdrawal by the Claimant. The judgment does not identify the protected characteristic said to underpin that harassment allegation.
The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was dismissed because it was presented outside the statutory time limit. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to bring the claim within the statutory time limit, and on that basis the late claim was rejected. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment records that the harassment claim was dismissed following a withdrawal by the Claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim was presented outside the statutory time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to bring it within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable test
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.