Case 3311502/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms Harris, Solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311502/2020
- Decision date
- 6 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim against Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The tribunal considered the claim form dated 7 September 2020, the tribunal correspondence asking for further information, and the claimant’s oral evidence. The claimant said she had been dismissed in either June or July 2019, which the tribunal accepted for the purposes of assessing limitation.
On that basis, the tribunal found the claim was presented outside the three-month time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Even allowing for the period of early conciliation that began on 29 June 2020, the claim was still substantially out of time, by almost 15 months. The claimant said she did not know about the time limit, but the tribunal relied on Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton 1991 ICR 488 and held that ignorance of the time limit would rarely justify the delay.
The tribunal found there were no grounds to extend time and therefore no jurisdiction to hear the claim. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented outside the time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal found no grounds to extend time and held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton 1991 ICR 488
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.