Case 3334747/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Fiford v Homes2Inspire — 2020
- Case reference
- 3334747/2018
- Decision date
- 12 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Appearances For
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Fiford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss T Fiford did not include complaints of unfair dismissal or wrongful dismissal in her claim, and the tribunal refused permission to amend the claim to add them. The judgment therefore proceeded only on the complaints actually before the tribunal.
The claimant's complaint of failure to give written reasons for dismissal was found to have been presented outside the time limit. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for that complaint to have been presented in time, so the time limit could not be extended and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.
The claimant's complaints of disability discrimination were also found to have been presented outside the time limit. The tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear those complaints. The judgment concluded that the claim could not proceed because it had not been brought within the time limits.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint of failure to give written reasons for dismissal. Presented outside the time limit; tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present in time and that the time limit could not be extended, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaints were presented outside the time limit. The tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear them. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.