Case 1300576/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Hancock v The Manor House Tamworth Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1300576/2021
- Decision date
- 25 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Findlay Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Hancock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Hancock worked as a care assistant from 26 June 2017. After being diagnosed with cancer in September 2019, she went off sick on 20 November 2019 and did not return to work. Her complaint was that she had been required to work Tuesday shifts or take unpaid leave when she needed hospital appointments, and that this affected her entitlement to statutory sick pay. A holiday pay dispute was noted as resolved and was not part of the judgment.
On the statutory sick pay issue, the tribunal applied section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the reasonably practicable test. It accepted that, because of fatigue related to her cancer, it was not reasonably practicable for her to bring the claim before the end of September 2020. However, the tribunal found that by early November 2020, and certainly by 12 November 2020 when her solicitor wrote to the respondent, she had enough advice and information to bring the claim. She did not do so until 18 February 2021, so the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the unauthorised deduction claim.
For the disability discrimination allegations, the tribunal treated the case as comprising direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. It found that the last possible discriminatory act was no later than 20 November 2019, so the three-month primary limitation period expired on 19 February 2020. Applying section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and considering the just and equitable extension authorities, including Robertson v Bexley, Keeble, British Coal Corporation v Keeble 1997 IRLR 336 EAT, and Afolabi and Morgan, the tribunal concluded that it would only have extended time if the claim had been brought by the end of November 2020.
The tribunal noted that Mrs Hancock had received advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau in May 2020, had a grievance response by 5 October 2020, and had solicitor advice and an ACAS certificate by 6 November 2020. It was not persuaded that the later delay to 18 February 2021 should be excused, and it therefore refused to extend time. No monetary remedy was awarded because both live claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerned alleged non-payment of statutory sick pay. The tribunal held the complaint was out of time and that it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment treated the disability allegations together, including direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments arising from the rota and hospital-appointment issues. The tribunal dismissed them because they were presented outside the primary limitation period and it refused to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- reasonably practicable test
- just and equitable extension test
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley
- Keeble
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble 1997 IRLR 336 EAT
- Afolabi and Morgan
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.