Case 3319402/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Holmes v Weetabix Food Company Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3319402/2019
- Decision date
- 8 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Holmes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Norwich before Employment Judge M Warren on 4 September 2020. The claimant, Mrs L Holmes, appeared in person and the respondent, Weetabix Food Company Limited, was represented by counsel. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal set aside the notice dated 30 January 2020 that had dismissed the claimant’s claims for noncompliance with an unless order, finding that it was in the interests of justice to do so. After doing so, the tribunal considered the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it had been presented out of time. No remedy was awarded, and the judgment does not record any compensatory, basic award, or other monetary figure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time. The earlier notice dated 30 January 2020 dismissing the claim for noncompliance with an unless order was set aside in the interests of justice. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.