Case 1304705/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Taylor v J D Wetherspoon plc FINAL HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304705/2023
- Decision date
- 1 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss A Taylor, brought only two Tribunal complaints: unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The hearing was before Employment Judge Camp. The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint was presented outside the time limit in section 111(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable to present it within time.
The tribunal also held that the disability discrimination complaint was presented after the period specified in section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 and after any further period that would be just and equitable. Accordingly, the claimant's entire claim failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the complaint was presented outside the time limit in section 111(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the disability discrimination complaint was brought after the period specified in section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 and after any further period the tribunal thought just and equitable. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
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.