Case 6002575/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Briscoe v University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (“the third respondent” or “R3”) — 2024
- Case reference
- 6002575/2023
- Decision date
- 31 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Briscoe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Nottingham on 23 July 2024 before Employment Judge M Butler sitting alone. The Tribunal dealt with jurisdiction only. It held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claims of disability discrimination, and those claims were to proceed to the final hearing already listed.
The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It found that the claim had been presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been submitted in time. On that basis, the Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
No remedy was awarded at this stage, and no written reasons were to be provided unless requested within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing decision on jurisdiction only: the Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination claims, which were listed to proceed to final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable to have submitted it in time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.