Case 4103927/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Sodexo Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103927/2022
- Decision date
- 27 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sangster Claimant
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's employment terminated on 5 September 2019 and the primary time limit for an unfair dismissal complaint expired on 4 December 2019. The ET1 was presented on 15 July 2022, over 31 months after the primary time limit expired. Early conciliation in 2022 did not extend the primary time limit because it occurred after that time limit had already expired.
The Tribunal accepted that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within the initial three-month period because she was waiting for the outcome of her internal appeal, was not trade union supported, had not sought advice, and had not otherwise been put on notice of the time limit. However, by around March 2020 Citizens Advice Edinburgh had told her there were time limits for Employment Tribunal claims, and the Tribunal found it was not reasonable for her to continue delaying once she knew that.
The Tribunal did not accept Covid-19 as a satisfactory explanation for the later delay. Employment Tribunal claims could be presented throughout the pandemic, the claimant was receiving advice from Citizens Advice Edinburgh from March to October 2020, and she gave no satisfactory explanation for taking no action between receiving the appeal outcome in October 2020 and beginning internet research in April 2022. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the claim was not presented within such further period as was reasonable and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint because it was presented out of time; the complaint was dismissed on that basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust v Williams
- Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority
- John Lewis Partnership v Charman
- Nolan v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services
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.