Case 6018102/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Bowden v Asda Stores Limited HELD AT: Liverpool (in public, by CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018102/2024
- Decision date
- 4 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Bowden
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim complied with the time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claimant was dismissed on 29 March 2024 and that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit.
The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. It therefore struck out the claim under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because it had no jurisdiction to hear an out-of-time claim and no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dealt with a preliminary time-limit issue only. It found the claim was presented out of time, that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and struck it out under Rule 38(1)(a) for lack of jurisdiction and no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.