Case 1308105/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1308105/2019
- Decision date
- 8 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Dimbylow sitting alone, the claimant was found to have been disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period from 3 December 2015 until the date of presentation of the claim form on 1 November 2019. The disability was found to arise from anxiety and depression.
The tribunal held that the harassment related to disability claims identified at (5)(x)a, b, c, d, f and g were presented out of time, but that they formed part of a continuing act or omission so that they could proceed. The claimant's application to amend to add claim (5)(x)e was refused and dismissed.
The tribunal reached the same time-limit conclusion for the victimisation claims identified at (5)(xv)a, b, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q and r, which it held formed part of a continuing act or omission and could proceed. Claim (5)(xv)s was struck out under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success, and the applications to amend to add claims (5)(xv)c, t, u and v were refused and dismissed. The tribunal also refused and dismissed the claimant's application to amend to include a further claim identified at (5)(v) to (ix) pursuant to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal made no strike-out order in respect of the 23 harassment and victimisation claims allowed to proceed. It found those claims had little reasonable prospects of success and ordered a deposit of £50 for each claim, making a total of £1,150.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Claims identified at (5)(x)a, b, c, d, f and g were presented out of time, but the tribunal held they formed part of a continuing act or omission and could proceed. The application to amend to add claim (5)(x)e was presented out of time and was refused and dismissed. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Claims identified at (5)(xv)a, b, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q and r were presented out of time, but the tribunal held they formed part of a continuing act or omission and could proceed. The applications to amend to add claims (5)(xv)c, t, u and v were presented out of time and were refused and dismissed. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Claim (5)(xv)s was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 37. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The application to amend the claim to include a further claim identified at (5)(v) to (ix) pursuant to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 was refused and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,150
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- continuing act or omission
- Rule 37
- little reasonable prospects of success
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.