Case 3315231/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Buck, claimant’s daughter For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3315231/2023
- Decision date
- 28 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms S Buck, claimant’s daughter For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 27 January 2025 before Employment Judge French, the tribunal dealt with two preliminary issues. The respondent's application to strike out the age discrimination complaint was refused. The tribunal said that whether the age discrimination claim had been presented within the applicable time limit would be determined at the final hearing, so no substantive finding was made on that claim at this stage.
The tribunal dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal complaint because it was not presented within the applicable time limit. It found that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, but that it was also not presented within a further reasonable period. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Application to strike out the complaint was refused. The tribunal said the question of whether the age discrimination claim was presented within the applicable time limit would be decided at the final hearing. | Other | Age | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the constructive unfair dismissal claim was not presented within the applicable time limit. It held that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, but it was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.