Case 4102468/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Jones (sitting alone) Mrs P Walker v Represented by: Mr R Miller - Consultant Barchester Healthcare — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102468/2018
- Decision date
- 2 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms Amanda
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jones (sitting alone) Mrs P Walker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs P Walker was dismissed without notice on 9 March 2017 and presented her ET1 on 8 February 2018. The judgment records that her claim was framed as unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure. Her originating application also contained claims for breach of contract and unpaid sums, but those were withdrawn before the hearing.
The hearing on 18 March 2019 was limited to whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint, as the parties agreed the claim was about eight months out of time. The Tribunal applied the statutory time-limit question under section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and asked whether it had been reasonably practicable to present the claim within three months of the effective date of termination, and if not, whether the claim was brought within a further reasonable period.
The Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable to have brought the claim in time. It accepted that the claimant had been professionally advised by the RCN around the time of dismissal and during the later NMC referral process, and that there was no evidence she had been specifically told that she had a protected-disclosure unfair dismissal claim. It also found that ignorance of the fact that some unfair dismissal claims can be brought without two years' service was not enough to excuse the delay.
The Tribunal further found that the eventual delay was not reasonable. It noted that the claimant did not seek further advice until January 2018, after an unanswered email to the respondent's CEO, and that even after speaking to Mr Miller there was a further delay before the ET1 was lodged. The Tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim and dismissed it. The respondent referred to Royal Bank of Scotland v Bevan EAT440/07/LA in submissions on the length of any extension, but the decisive point was the claimant's failure to satisfy the time-limit test.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was presented as unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure. The originating application also included breach of contract and unpaid sums claims, but those were later withdrawn. The tribunal decided only the preliminary jurisdiction/time-limit issue and did not reach the merits of the dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- further reasonable period test
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.