Case 1304799/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mr A Weiss - Counsel — 2021
- Case reference
- 1304799/2020
- Decision date
- 15 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harding’s Order
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing at Birmingham by CVP before Employment Judge Self on 26 May 2021. The tribunal considered limitation issues arising from the Order dated 15 April 2021. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal held that the single act of sex discrimination identified at paragraph 8.2 of the Order was not presented within the statutory time limit. It also held that it would not be just and equitable to extend time for that claim, so the sex discrimination claim was dismissed.
The tribunal reached the same limitation conclusion for the disability discrimination allegations at paragraphs 5.2, 5.4, 7.1 to 7.6, 7.8 to 7.11, 8.1 and 8.3. Those disability discrimination claims were dismissed because they were out of time and the tribunal did not extend time on a just and equitable basis.
By contrast, the alleged disability discrimination at paragraph 7.7 was found to be part of an act extending over a period and/or a matter that it was just and equitable to consider. That allegation will proceed to be heard on its merits at a final hearing together with the other remaining matters identified in the case management order.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The single act identified at paragraph 8.2 of EJ Harding's Order dated 15 April 2021 was held to be outside the statutory time limit and it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The alleged disability discrimination at paragraphs 5.2, 5.4, 7.1-7.6, 7.8-7.11, 8.1 and 8.3 of the Order was held to be out of time and time was not extended on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The alleged disability discrimination at paragraph 7.7 was found to be part of an act extending over a period and/or suitable to be considered just and equitably, and it will proceed to a final hearing on the merits with the remaining matters in the case management order. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- statutory time limit
- just and equitable
- act extending over a period
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.