Case 3311751/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Alison Burke v Dial Green Estates Management Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 3311751/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Alison Burke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford Employment Tribunal on 2 April 2026 before Employment Judge Young. The claimant was represented by Mr James Khalid, counsel, and the respondent by Mr Alex Lawson, counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, and holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998. For each claim, the tribunal recorded that it had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time.
The respondent's application for costs failed. The judgment records no monetary award to the claimant and no costs award to the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment described this as a claim for holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998. It was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable
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.