Claimant v Airwave Solutions Ltd — 2022

Case reference: 1301581/2021
Decision date: 29 September 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dean

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Respondent

Airwave Solutions Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the preliminary hearing on 29 September 2022, Employment Judge Dean considered the claims brought by Ms S Lewis and Ms A Beech against Airwave Solutions Limited. The written judgment records that the claims were not presented within the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and were also not within any further period the tribunal considered just and equitable.

Because of that finding, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaints. The result recorded in the judgment is that the claimants' complaints were dismissed.

The judgment does not set out any findings on the underlying merits of the alleged discrimination, and it records no monetary award or remedy.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The tribunal held that the complaints were presented outside the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and outside any further period it considered just and equitable, so it had no jurisdiction to consider them.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.