Case 3335550/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Bradbury, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3335550/2018
- Decision date
- 22 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss Bradbury, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing in Norwich on 7 November 2019, before Employment Judge Postle, the tribunal considered the timeliness of Miss Stroud’s Employment Rights Act 1996 claim and her Equality Act 2010 claim. It held that it was reasonably practical to have issued the Employment Rights Act claim in time, and that claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also held that the Equality Act 2010 claim was out of time in relation to Early Conciliation and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. That claim was therefore dismissed as well. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment refers only to 'the Claimant’s claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996'. This is classified here as unfair dismissal because the limitation wording is consistent with an unfair-dismissal time-limit issue, but the extracted text does not spell out the substantive ERA complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The extracted text identifies only 'the claim under the Equality Act 2010' and does not specify the protected characteristic or the precise Equality Act cause. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practical to have issued the claim in time
- just and equitable to extend time
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.