Case 3305914/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For v Ms. Cairney, Solicitor — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305914/2022
- Decision date
- 26 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Douse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Watford on 25 January 2023, before Employment Judge Douse sitting alone, the tribunal dealt only with limitation and jurisdiction issues. The claimant, Miss R. Thomas, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms. Cairney, solicitor.
The tribunal held that the unfair (constructive) dismissal claim had been presented out of time. It found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present that claim in time, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it and struck it out.
The tribunal also held that the disability discrimination claim had been presented out of time. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend time for that claim, so the tribunal again held that it lacked jurisdiction and struck the claim out. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Described in the judgment as 'Unfair (constructive) dismissal'; presented out of time, with the tribunal finding it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it in time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction and struck it out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction and struck it out. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.