Case 6019775/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Boezalt v Marks and Spencer plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019775/2024
- Decision date
- 3 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T Boezalt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against Marks and Spencer PLC. The hearing took place by cloud video platform at London Central Employment Tribunal before Employment Judge Nash.
The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal claim was not presented within the statutory time limit when it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to do so. It therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider that claim, and dismissed it.
The tribunal also found that the disability discrimination claim was not presented within the statutory time limit. It held that it was not just and equitable to extend time for that claim, and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the claim because it was not presented within the statutory time limit when it was reasonably practicable to do so, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the claim because it was not presented within the statutory time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- statutory timelimit
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable to extend time
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.