Cases2203279/2025

Claimant v Virtus Holdco Limited

29 December 2025Before Employment Judge ShuklaLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The claim was not presented within the applicable statutory time limit. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time, and therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and it was dismissed.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)not determined

The claim was presented outside the applicable time limit, but the tribunal exercised its discretion to extend time on just and equitable grounds. The claim will proceed to a full merits hearing.

Direct Discrimination(age)not determined

The claim was presented outside the applicable time limit, but the tribunal exercised its discretion to extend time on just and equitable grounds. The claim will proceed to a full merits hearing.

Direct Discrimination(sex)not determined

The claim was presented outside the applicable time limit, but the tribunal exercised its discretion to extend time on just and equitable grounds. The claim will proceed to a full merits hearing.

Facts

Ms Carter brought claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination (disability, age and sex) against Virtus Holdco Limited. All claims were presented outside the applicable statutory time limits. This was a preliminary hearing to determine whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the out-of-time claims.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, finding it was reasonably practicable for Ms Carter to present it in time. However, the tribunal extended time for the discrimination claims on just and equitable grounds, allowing those claims to proceed to a full merits hearing.

Practical note

Different time limit tests apply to unfair dismissal (reasonably practicable) versus discrimination claims (just and equitable), with tribunals having broader discretion to extend time for discrimination claims.

Legal authorities cited

Case details

Case number
2203279/2025
Decision date
29 December 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
No