Case 1600525/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Leanne Prins Respondent (1) National Offender Management Service Respondent (2) HM Prison and Probation Service Respondent (3) HMPPS v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 1600525/2018
Decision date: 24 March 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge A Frazer Representation
Venue: Cardiff

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Leanne Prins Respondent (1) National Offender Management Service Respondent (2) HM Prison and Probation Service Respondent (3) HMPPS

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal considered Leanne Prins's disability discrimination claim and held that alleged conduct before 2017 did not form part of conduct extending over a period for the purposes of s.123(3) Equality Act 2010. Those earlier allegations were therefore not allowed to proceed.

This written record records only that preliminary limitation ruling. It does not determine the merits of any other part of the claim, and no monetary remedy was recorded in this decision.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The tribunal held that alleged disability discrimination prior to 2017 did not form part of conduct extending over a period for the purposes of s.123(3) Equality Act 2010 and said those allegations would not proceed. The written record does not determine the merits of any other part of the claim.	Other	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.