Case 6009692/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Laura Smith v Great Places Housing Association — 2026
- Case reference
- 6009692/2024
- Decision date
- 16 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller-Varey REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Laura Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing. The respondent was represented by counsel, and the tribunal considered whether the claims had been presented within the applicable time limits.
The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time when it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. It also found that, if that were wrong, the claim had not been presented within a reasonable further period. The Equality Act 2010 complaints were also presented out of time, and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to allow them to proceed. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for being presented outside the applicable time limit, with no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The judgment refers generally to complaints under the Equality Act 2010 being out of time and dismissed. The specific characteristic is taken from the listing/category context rather than detailed reasons in the short judgment. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Gender reassignment discrimination | The judgment refers generally to complaints under the Equality Act 2010 being out of time and dismissed. The specific characteristic is taken from the listing/category context rather than detailed reasons in the short judgment. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
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.