Case 1300745/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Wills v The Salvation Army Trustee Company Heard — 2022
- Case reference
- 1300745/2021
- Decision date
- 4 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hindmarch Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Wills
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hindmarch heard the respondent's strike out application at an open preliminary hearing on 29 July 2022 and reserved judgment to 15 September 2022. The ET1 had been presented on 7 March 2021 after ACAS early conciliation from 18 January 2021 to 25 February 2021, and the judge recorded repeated case management steps, requests for further particulars and an unless order because the claimant had not clearly identified the basis of her claims.
The judge held that the only in-time dismissal claim, ordinary unfair dismissal, had no reasonable prospect of success. By the date of dismissal the claimant had been absent from work for 33 months, occupational health reports had been obtained, the claimant agreed there was no adjustment that could facilitate a return to work and no redeployment opportunity was identified, and capability was capable of amounting to a fair reason for dismissal. On that basis the unfair dismissal claim was struck out.
The remaining disability discrimination, victimisation and protected-disclosure allegations were found to be out of time and inadequately pleaded. The judge noted that the claimant had known about time limits, including correspondence in June 2019 referring to a 1 July 2019 deadline, but did not contact ACAS until 18 January 2021. The tribunal also found that she had not identified the protected acts relied on, had not explained why the alleged disclosures were protected or qualifying, and had not connected the alleged disclosures to the detriments complained of. The disability claim was also problematic because the claimant relied on several conditions, while the respondent accepted only the back condition as a disability from the occupational health report of 27 October 2017. No monetary award was made because all claims were struck out.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said this was the only in-time claim and treated it as ordinary unfair dismissal only. It held that capability was a potentially fair reason and that, on the agreed facts, the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant relied on disability discrimination allegations including reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability, direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment. The tribunal held these allegations were out of time and not adequately particularised. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held the claimant had not identified the protected act relied on for the Equality Act victimisation allegations. It also found the allegations were out of time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal treated the protected-disclosure detriment allegations under the Employment Rights Act as out of time and insufficiently pleaded. It found that many of the alleged disclosures did not involve the claimant disclosing information and that the links to detriments were not identified. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospects of success
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias
- Chandhok v Tirkey
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.