Case 1600854/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Sully v FEI Foods Limited and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600854/2024
- Decision date
- 18 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Havard Representation
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms E Sully
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant started work for FEI Foods Limited on 13 May 2019 as a Commercial Director. The tribunal recorded that she alleged a campaign of bullying, harassment and mistreatment from August 2020, and that her health deteriorated significantly after an operation in February 2021, subsequent sickness absence, and a capability dismissal on 22 October 2021 with an effective date of termination of 22 April 2022. The claim form was presented on 13 March 2024, well outside the primary time limits, so the preliminary hearing was concerned only with time limits rather than the merits of the substantive claims.
For the unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages complaints, the tribunal applied the reasonable practicability test under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It accepted the claimant's evidence, the evidence of her sons, and the medical records, and found that her illness became very severe throughout 2022 and 2023, creating an impediment to presenting the claims in time. It also found that the claim was presented within a reasonable period after that, noting that it was lodged just under a week after the Early Conciliation Certificate was issued on 7 March 2024.
For the disability discrimination complaints, the tribunal applied the just and equitable test under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It held that the claimant had put forward a substantial and substantiated reason for the delay, and that the respondent had not shown material prejudice: the evidence on prejudice was thin, there was no direct evidence that witnesses could not be traced or would not recall events, and any further delay before the final hearing was said to be minimal. Time was therefore extended for the disability discrimination complaints to proceed.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Time-limit issue only: the tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary limitation period and that it was presented within a reasonable period thereafter. Merits were not decided at this hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Time-limit issue only: the tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary limitation period and that it was presented within a reasonable period thereafter. Merits were not decided at this hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination: the tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time so the claim could proceed. Merits were not decided at this hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability: the tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time so the claim could proceed. Merits were not decided at this hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Other | Failure to make reasonable adjustments: the tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time so the claim could proceed. Merits were not decided at this hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability: the tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time so the claim could proceed. Merits were not decided at this hearing. |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
- Walls' Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Marley (UK) Ltd v Anderson
- Palmer and another v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- London Borough of Southwark v Afolabi
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
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.