Case 1401203/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Tara Hegarty v Progress Housing Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401203/2020
- Decision date
- 21 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. M.
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Tara Hegarty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Tara Hegarty, brought claims against Progress Housing Limited for constructive dismissal and disability discrimination. At the hearing before Employment Judge Salter in Southampton via CVP on 7 January 2021, the tribunal did not determine either claim on the merits.
For the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
For the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear that claim either. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and the decision was sent to the parties on 21 January 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to have presented the constructive dismissal claim within the time limit in s.111 ERA 1996 and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time for the disability discrimination claim and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.