Case 3312958/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Glascott, Friend For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312958/2022
- Decision date
- 4 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss C Glascott, Friend For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 15 June 2023, Employment Judge Postle considered whether the claim was out of time because the claim form had stated that employment ended on 4 May 2022. The claimant produced a dismissal letter dated 5 July 2022, and the tribunal accepted that this was the effective date of dismissal. On that basis, the claim was held to have been presented in time.
The tribunal noted that the claimant had not entered ACAS conciliation until 8 August 2022, so if the 4 May 2022 date had been correct the claim would have appeared out of time. Counsel for the respondents said the hearing would have been unnecessary if the date had been corrected earlier. Mr Ashley sought £850 in wasted costs, but Employment Judge Postle reserved the question of costs to the full merits hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the claim was in time because the effective date of dismissal was 5 July 2022, not 4 May 2022. No merits decision was made. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.