Case 1400494/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs V Ashton v Marks and Spencer plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400494/2024
- Decision date
- 10 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Volkmer Representation
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs V Ashton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs V Ashton, a former Customer Assistant at the Marks and Spencer PLC Torbay store, brought claims of ordinary unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination and harassment related to race, and direct disability discrimination, harassment related to disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The Public Preliminary Hearing took place at Exeter Employment Tribunal on 10 October 2024 and 31 January 2025 before Employment Judge Volkmer. The claimant appeared in person with her partner Mr Walker, assisted by a Lithuanian interpreter; the respondent was represented by Ms Defriend of counsel.
The Tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant time within s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reference to her heart condition, and accordingly dismissed all of the disability discrimination complaints. The respondent's wider strike-out application was dismissed.
In respect of the race discrimination and race-related harassment allegations, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to make a deposit order of £30 in relation to each of the three allegations at paragraphs 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.2.4 of the List of Issues (totalling £90), having found these had little reasonable prospect of success and taking into account the claimant's stated means. If the deposits are not paid within 28 days, those allegations will be struck out. The remaining race-based allegations (paragraphs 3.2.3 and 3.2.5) may proceed without a deposit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Disability discrimination complaints (direct disability discrimination, harassment related to disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments) dismissed because the Tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant time within s.6 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination and harassment-related-to-race allegations: respondent's strike-out application was dismissed. Allegations 3.2.3 and 3.2.5 may proceed without a deposit. Allegations 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.2.4 are subject to deposit orders of £30 each (£90 total) under s.39 Employment Tribunals Act 1996; if not paid within 28 days, the relevant allegations will be struck out. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
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.