Case 6010264/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Ramsden v Locala Community Partnerships C.I.C. — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010264/2024
- Decision date
- 3 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tegerdine Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Ramsden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard from both parties at a video hearing in Sheffield on 1 May 2025, with Employment Judge Tegerdine sitting alone. The only issue decided in the written judgment was whether the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint had been presented within the statutory time limit in section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal found that the complaint was not presented within the time limit in section 111(2)(a). It also found, for the purposes of section 111(2)(b), that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint to have been presented within that time limit. On that basis, the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint was not presented within the time limit in section 111(2)(a) ERA 1996 and that, for section 111(2)(b), it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it in time. It therefore held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111(2) ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.