Case 1305599/2022 · Employment Tribunal
C. Davies v Birmingham City Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305599/2022
- Decision date
- 20 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Algazy KC
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
- Panel members
- Mr J. Wagstaffe, Mr J. Kelly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C. Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear claims predating 29 March 2022 because they were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time for those claims.
The remaining claims for disability related discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment related to disability, and victimisation for having done a protected act were all found to be unfounded and were dismissed. Oral reasons were given, with written reasons available only if requested under Rule 62(3).
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claims for disability related discrimination were found to be unfounded and dismissed. Claims predating 29 March 2022 were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction because they were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments were found to be unfounded and dismissed. Claims predating 29 March 2022 were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction because they were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Claims for harassment related to disability were found to be unfounded and dismissed. Claims predating 29 March 2022 were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction because they were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Claims for victimisation for having done a protected act were found to be unfounded and dismissed. Claims predating 29 March 2022 were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction because they were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable to extend time
- Rule 62(3) of Schedule 1 of the 2013 Rules
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.