Case 1406034/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Stiles v Mitie Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1406034/2020
- Decision date
- 10 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Stiles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Midgley reconsidered of his own motion an earlier judgment of Employment Judge Christensen dated 27 January 2021, which had rejected the claims under rule 12(1)(f). The judge determined that it was in the interests of justice to revoke that judgment, with the result that the claims were accepted.
The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. It did not determine the merits of either claim.
For the disability discrimination claims, the Tribunal stated that whether the claims formed conduct extending over a period ending with the claimant's resignation for the purposes of s.123 EQA 2010 would be determined at the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing judgment held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim; the merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination claims; the question whether they formed conduct extending over a period for s.123 EQA 2010 purposes was left to the final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 12(1)(f)
- s.123 EQA 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.