Case 1303390/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Begum v Lloyds Banking Group — 2025
- Case reference
- 1303390/2024
- Decision date
- 31 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smart
- Venue
- Birmingham Method By Video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P Begum
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing judgment. Day one was adjourned from 14.45 because of an incident involving a dependent of the claimant.
The tribunal recorded that it was not disputed that the claimant's disability discrimination claims had been submitted out of time. Considering the last act of discrimination in the pleaded claim, identified as the direct discrimination claim dated 29 September 2023, the tribunal found it was just and equitable to extend time for that claim to be heard, and the claim would therefore continue.
The tribunal did not determine the merits of the discrimination claims. It recorded that jurisdictional issues remained for trial in relation to the other discrimination claims, including whether they formed an extended period of discriminatory conduct, and that the question whether the claimant was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 for her back problem would be listed for a further preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment only. It was not disputed that the disability discrimination claims were presented out of time. The tribunal found it was just and equitable to extend time for the pleaded direct discrimination claim dated 29 September 2023, so that claim would continue. Other jurisdictional issues and the question whether the claimant was disabled in respect of her back problem remained to be determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable extension of time
- section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
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.