Case 1304336/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms. J.Smeaton - Counsel Case No. 1304336/2018 — 2019
- Case reference
- 1304336/2018
- Decision date
- 27 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Algazy QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 27 September 2019 before Employment Judge Algazy QC, the Tribunal considered whether the claimant's disability discrimination claims were in time. It held that, save for the section 15 claim relating to dismissal, it did not have jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination claims because they were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010.
The section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim, so far as it related to dismissal arising in consequence of disability, was also out of time, but the Tribunal decided that it was just and equitable to extend time for that claim. That claim was allowed to proceed to a substantive hearing. The Tribunal made no order on the respondent's application for a deposit in respect of that claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Save for the section 15 dismissal claim, the Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination claims because they were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim in respect of dismissal was also out of time, but the Tribunal decided it was just and equitable to extend time for that claim and it was allowed to proceed to a substantive hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
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.