Case 1402769/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. S. Hagan v Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 1402769/2019
- Decision date
- 23 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R. Harper MBE
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. S. Hagan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr. S. Hagan brought a disability discrimination claim against Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust. The tribunal noted that the alleged discrimination occurred in September 2018, that ACAS early conciliation ran from 15 April 2019 to 29 April 2019, and that the ET1 was presented on 29 June 2019.
The tribunal found the claim was substantially out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. On that basis, it held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
In the alternative, if jurisdiction had existed, the tribunal said it would have found that the claimant was not a disabled person as defined at the relevant time. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held the alleged discrimination in September 2018 was substantially out of time, that it was not just and equitable to extend time, and therefore it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. In the alternative, the tribunal said the claimant was not a disabled person as defined at the relevant time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable to extend time
- disabled person as defined at the relevant time
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.