Case 8001022/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Despoina Christidou v BeDental Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8001022/2024
- Decision date
- 22 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Despoina Christidou
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a preliminary issue in Ms Despoina Christidou's complaint against BeDental Limited. It found that the complaint was presented outside the relevant time limit under article 730 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994, or alternatively section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint and dismissed it. Because the complaint was out of time, it was unnecessary for the tribunal to decide the separate preliminary issue of whether the claimant was an employee or a worker for statutory purposes.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the complaint was presented outside the time limit in article 730 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994, or alternatively section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- article 730 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
- section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.