Case 3305996/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Lenka Hruskova v Honeywell Avionics Systems Ltd HELD AT: Reading/ CVP — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305996/2024
- Decision date
- 7 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Booth REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Lenka Hruskova
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Hruskova was dismissed with immediate effect for gross misconduct on 11 December 2023. The Tribunal found that this was the effective date of termination and that the three-month time limit under section 111 ERA 1996 expired at midnight on 10 March 2024. Her unfair dismissal claim was not presented until 18 June 2024, after the time limit had expired.
The Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for Ms Hruskova to present her claim in time. It found that she knew in January or February 2024 that she had a right to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and that she accessed government guidance showing the usual three-month time limit. The Tribunal found that further information was signposted through a hyperlink on the gov.uk page and that it would have been reasonably practicable for her to follow that link and do further research then.
The Tribunal rejected her argument that she could wait for the internal appeal to conclude before starting tribunal proceedings. It found that the appeal outcome letter of 28 February 2024 stated that the decision was final and that there was no further right of appeal. The Tribunal also found that an ongoing internal appeal did not make it not reasonably practicable to present a claim, and that her mistaken view that time ran from a later "problem" was not reasonable.
For completeness, the Tribunal also found that the claim was not brought within a reasonable further period. It said that she had not acted reasonably in waiting while she collated evidence and while she obtained legal advice that did not cover the UK tribunal process or time limits. The claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the complaint was presented after the s.111 ERA 1996 time limit and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.97 ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer and another v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v G Britton
- Aghedosa v Urbaser Ltd
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.