Case 1401619/2018 · Employment Tribunal

in person. For the v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 1401619/2018
Decision date: 5 July 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge M. Salter Appearances

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

in person. For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a hearing on 28 June 2019, Employment Judge M. Salter dealt with preliminary time-limit and case-management issues in Christine Hughes v Cambian Asperger Syndrome Services Limited trading as Southlands School. The tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time to permit the claimant to present her claims outside the relevant time limit.

The tribunal also held that the respondent had not shown the claimant's claims had no reasonable prospect of success or little reasonable prospect of success. On that basis, it refused to strike out the claims and refused any deposit order in whole or in part. The written judgment records no final merits determination and no remedy award.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The tribunal granted an extension of time to permit the claim to be presented outside the relevant time limit and refused the respondent's strike out/deposit application. The substantive merits were not finally determined in this judgment.	Other	Disability	—
Sexual orientation discrimination	The tribunal granted an extension of time to permit the claim to be presented outside the relevant time limit and refused the respondent's strike out/deposit application. The substantive merits were not finally determined in this judgment.	Other	Sexual orientation	—
Victimisation	The tribunal granted an extension of time to permit the claim to be presented outside the relevant time limit and refused the respondent's strike out/deposit application. The substantive merits were not finally determined in this judgment.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.