Case 1302241/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302241/2022
- Decision date
- 1 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing at Birmingham on 1 March 2023 before Employment Judge Gaskell. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel, Mr S Way.
The tribunal recorded that, pursuant to section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and Regulation 8 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, the claimant’s claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The written judgment does not set out any substantive findings on the underlying facts or merits of either claim.
No remedy was awarded because both claims were dismissed at the jurisdiction stage. The note at the end of the judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the stated procedure.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment refers to claims under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and dismisses them for want of jurisdiction. The PDF text does not set out the factual basis, but the case listing/category identifies the claim as disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction under Regulation 8 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Regulation 8 Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
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.