Case 1600153/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Mortimer v Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600153/2022
- Decision date
- 3 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Mortimer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal determined limitation and jurisdiction issues. It dismissed the claimant's detriment claims under sections 44 and 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because they had been presented outside the statutory time limit and it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time.
The tribunal also dismissed, as out of time, the claimant's disability-related harassment, direct disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments claims except for the matters specifically identified in paragraph 3 of the judgment. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The same conclusion was recorded in relation to an additional reasonable adjustments allegation about home working after periods of sick leave in 2015-2017, which was not in the list of issues and would in any event require an amendment application.
The respondent conceded that certain claims were in time and would proceed: unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, one harassment allegation from 15 June 2020 onwards concerning the conduct of absence management meetings leading to dismissal, and two allegations of direct disability discrimination concerning adjustments, support, supervision, and the application of policies and procedures.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim under s44 Employment Rights Act 1996 for suffering detriments was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim under s47B Employment Rights Act 1996 for suffering detriments was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment relating to disability claims, other than the allegation from 15 June 2020 onwards concerning the conduct of absence management meetings culminating in dismissal, were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as out of time. The allegation from 15 June 2020 onwards was recorded as in time and will proceed. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments claims, other than the allegations listed in paragraph 3(d), were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as out of time. The respondent conceded that the discrimination arising from disability claim and two listed allegations of direct disability discrimination were in time and will proceed. The tribunal also recorded that a further reasonable adjustments allegation about home working in 2015-2017 was out of time and would require an amendment application. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent conceded that the unfair dismissal claim was in time and it will proceed; this judgment did not determine liability on the merits. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s123 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.