Case 1300398/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Denise Francis and v Asda Stores Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1300398/2025
- Decision date
- 1 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harding
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Denise Francis and
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the claimant's application to amend her existing claim. Her original claim form had been presented as an age discrimination claim and also referred to other payments, breach of duty of care, and the ACAS Code. She later applied to add disability discrimination and victimisation claims, relying on degenerative disc disease and bulging discs.
The tribunal allowed amendments adding failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability, direct disability discrimination in the alternative, and one victimisation allegation relating to the alleged failure to investigate a grievance and/or provide an outcome. The tribunal noted that the proceedings were at a relatively early stage, the application followed advice obtained from ELIPS, and greater hardship would be caused to the claimant if those amendments were refused.
The tribunal refused permission to add the first victimisation allegation based on the July 2023 grievance and an alleged detriment on 20 July 2023. It considered that no allegation of discrimination had been raised in the grievance relied on, expressed concern about how that claim could succeed, and also noted the significant delay of about two years. Issues about time limits for the allowed amendments were reserved for the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Permission to amend was allowed to add failure to make reasonable adjustments allegations; this was not a final merits determination. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Permission to amend was allowed to add discrimination arising from disability; this was not a final merits determination. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Permission to amend was allowed to add direct disability discrimination in the alternative; this was not a final merits determination. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Permission to amend was refused for the alleged victimisation detriment arising from the July 2023 grievance; the tribunal recorded concerns about merits and delay, but this was an amendment decision rather than a final merits determination. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | Permission to amend was allowed for the alleged victimisation detriment concerning failure to investigate the grievance and/or provide an outcome; this was not a final merits determination. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Selkent Bus v Moore [1996] I.C.R. 836
- Presidential Guidance, General Case Management issued in January 2018
- Chadock v Tirkey 2015 ICR 527
- Scottish Opera Ltd v Whinney UKEAT/0047/09
- CX v Secretary of State [2025] EAT 114
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.