Case 1304496/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Grant (Lay Representative) For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1304496/2021
- Decision date
- 9 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beck
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr S Grant (Lay Representative) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 9 January 2023, the tribunal was dealing with the claimant's sexual harassment complaints and a listed issue about time limits under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The unfair dismissal claim had already been dismissed on 28 February 2022 because the claimant did not have two years' service. No merits finding was made on the harassment complaints at this hearing.
Mr Grant, for the claimant, applied for an adjournment and said the claimant was confused and overwhelmed, needed more time, and required medical evidence relating to her mental health and addiction support. The only medical evidence before the tribunal was an AXA occupational health report dated 29 July 2021, which described anxiety and depression, a significant worsening from July 2021, and an expected recovery period of more than 12 weeks even after the workplace issues were resolved. The respondent opposed the application, relying on delay and prejudice, but the judge held that the claimant would suffer greater prejudice if the hearing proceeded and adjourned the matter to 11 April 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This preliminary judgment did not determine a substantive claim; it granted an adjournment of the open preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- overriding objective
- section 123 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.