Case 3305965/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2023

Case reference: 3305965/2022
Decision date: 13 November 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
Venue: Reading

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing on 10 November 2023 before Employment Judge Anderson at Reading by CVP. The issue was limitation only. The claimant presented her claim on 25 May 2022 after ACAS early conciliation had run from 8 September 2021 to 20 October 2021 and a second conciliation from 16 March 2022 to 26 April 2022. The tribunal accepted the respondent's submission, relying on HMRC v Garau and Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd v Morgan, that the second conciliation did not extend the filing date. It also recorded that the respondent accepted any unpaid wages, including holiday pay, claim was in time and did not address that head further.

The claimant's unfair dismissal and protected disclosure detriment claims were held out of time. She said illness, bereavements and difficulty obtaining advice explained the delay, but the tribunal found that she had contacted her GP, ACAS, solicitors and unions, had previously litigated in the tribunal, and was actively pursuing appeals and a grievance during the relevant period. The tribunal therefore found it was reasonably practicable to present those claims in time under s111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996. It also rejected the argument that the March 2022 appeal outcome was the relevant date for limitation on unfair dismissal, applying J Sainsbury Ltd v Savage.

The age, disability and race discrimination claims, including the direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation allegations, were also outside the primary time limit on their face, but the tribunal deferred deciding whether time should be extended under s123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 until the final hearing. The judgment noted that the direct discrimination case may have related to the redundancy process as late as December 2021, the harassment allegations ran from February 2020 to September 2021, and the victimisation amendment had only been added in September 2023. The tribunal said evidence on the alleged continuing course of conduct and the balance of prejudice would be better assessed at the final hearing.

Claims and outcomes

8 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and rejected the argument that the appeal outcome in March 2022 extended the limitation period.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Protected disclosure detriment claim was out of time and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time.	Dismissed	—	—
Age discrimination	Not presented in time on its face; the question whether it would be just and equitable to extend time was deferred to the final hearing.	Other	Age	—
Disability discrimination	Not presented in time on its face; the question whether it would be just and equitable to extend time was deferred to the final hearing.	Other	Disability	—
Race discrimination	Not presented in time on its face; the question whether it would be just and equitable to extend time was deferred to the final hearing.	Other	Race	—
Harassment	Harassment allegations were out of time on their face; the tribunal deferred the just-and-equitable extension question to the final hearing.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

8 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.