Case 1600551/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Ruth Carter v Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600551/2018
- Decision date
- 6 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ward
- Venue
- Wrexham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Ruth Carter
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment on a preliminary limitation point. The claimant relied on Crohn's disease as a disability, which the respondent accepted, and brought Equality Act complaints including discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, disability-related harassment and victimisation, alongside unfair constructive dismissal and wrongful dismissal. Protected disclosure detriment and indirect disability discrimination complaints had previously been withdrawn.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's submission that there was a continuing state of affairs from 2013 to 2018. It found that the historic allegations concerning VE were separate from later matters about the rejection of grievances in January 2018 and the absence management process, which involved different managers. The tribunal grouped the allegations and held that the historic allegations concerning VE were not part of a continuing act connecting them with the later complaints.
The tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis for the historic allegations. It noted the length of the delay, the likely effect on the cogency of evidence, the absence of a relevant failure by the respondent to cooperate with information requests, and the claimant's access to trade union advice. Allegations 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 22 were dismissed as time-barred, while allegations 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 20, together with unfair and wrongful constructive dismissal complaints, were to proceed to a full hearing.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability allegations 1, 2, 3 and 4 were dismissed as presented outside the Equality Act 2010 time limit, with no just and equitable extension. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability allegations 5, 6 and 7 were held not to be out of time and were to continue to a full hearing; merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments allegations 8 and 9 were dismissed as presented outside the Equality Act 2010 time limit, with no just and equitable extension. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments allegations 10, 11 and 12 were held not to be out of time and were to continue to a full hearing; merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment allegations 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 were dismissed as presented outside the Equality Act 2010 time limit, with no just and equitable extension. The judgment appears to list allegation 15 twice and omit 16 in the judgment paragraph, while the analysis elsewhere treats allegation 16 as challenged and historic. |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Section 123 Equality Act 2010
- conduct extending over a period
- continuing act
- just and equitable extension
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- Keeble factors
- Section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.