Case 6008340/2024 · Employment Tribunal
L Sprawling v Clydesdale Bank plc t/a Virgin Money PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008340/2024
- Decision date
- 25 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Sprawling
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Sweeney in Newcastle on 25 February 2025. The only claim identified in the judgment was unfair dismissal under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal found that the complaint was not presented before the end of the three-month time limit running from the effective date of termination. It was also not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented in time, or that it had in fact been presented within a further period that the Tribunal considered reasonable.
On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed as out of time. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the standard tribunal note.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that the complaint was not presented within three months beginning with the effective date of termination and was not brought within any further period it considered reasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111 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.