Case 1305979/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mrs S Deeley, Head of HR (Lay Representative) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1305979/2019
- Decision date
- 16 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing in Birmingham on 16 March 2020, Employment Judge Dimbylow found that the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, by reason of the physical impairment of dyslexia.
The tribunal then considered the claimant's disability discrimination complaints of direct discrimination and harassment related to disability. It held that both claims had been presented out of time. The tribunal also found that they did not form part of a continuing act or a continuing act of omission so as to bring them within time.
The tribunal further decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time. As a result, it held that it had no jurisdiction to hear either claim and dismissed them. The hearing dates fixed for 5, 6 and 7 October 2019 were cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination claim was presented out of time; tribunal found it did not form part of a continuing act or continuing act of omission, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was presented out of time; tribunal found it did not form part of a continuing act or continuing act of omission, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.