Case 6005752/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. J. Bennett v J.O.T. Ltd. t/a “Care Select” Hearing: Open Preliminary Hearing — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005752/2024
- Decision date
- 1 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. J. Bennett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 12 March 2025 before Employment Judge Tinnion, the Tribunal considered two unfair dismissal claims brought by Mrs. J. Bennett against J.O.T. Ltd. t/a Care Select. The claims were brought under sections 94 to 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and related to ET1 forms presented on 15 July 2024 and 24 July 2024.
In both claims, the Tribunal found that they were not presented in time and that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented them in time. On that basis, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider either claim and struck both out. No monetary remedy was awarded or assessed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim in the ET1 presented on 15 July 2024. The Tribunal found the claim was not presented in time, that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented it in time, and struck it out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim in the ET1 presented on 24 July 2024. The Tribunal found the claim was not presented in time, that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented it in time, and struck it out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- ss.94-98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.