Case 3330853/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Stewart, Head of HR Project For the v Mrs H Harrop, HR Manager — 2019
- Case reference
- 3330853/2018
- Decision date
- 18 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Stewart, Head of HR Project For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe only issue recorded in the extracted judgment was a claim for failure to notify employee liability information under regulation 12 of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006. Employment Judge Laidler, sitting at Bury St Edmunds on 13 December 2018, found that the claim had been received out of time.
The tribunal nevertheless held that the complaint had been presented within a reasonable time thereafter, because it was not reasonably practicable for it to have been presented before the end of the primary time period. The judgment therefore records that the time objection did not prevent the claim from being accepted.
No substantive finding on the underlying TUPE allegation and no monetary award are set out in the extracted text. The written record was sent to the parties on 18 January 2019.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The Tribunal found the claim for failure to notify employee liability information under regulation 12 of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006 was received out of time, but accepted that it was presented within a reasonable time thereafter because it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the primary time period. No merits determination is recorded in the extracted judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- not reasonably practicable
- reasonable time thereafter
- regulation 12 of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006
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.