Case 1601333/2019 · Employment Tribunal
IN PERSON FOR THE v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601333/2019
- Decision date
- 13 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- MRS P PALMER, MS C PEEL
Parties
1 namedClaimant
IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Cardiff before Employment Judge S Povey with Mrs P Palmer and Ms C Peel, gave a unanimous judgment in Mrs L Davies v Telefonica UK Limited. It recorded claims of age discrimination, disability discrimination and unlawful deductions from wages. No monetary award was made in the decision extract provided.
The Tribunal held that, having regard to the applicable statutory time limits, it did not have jurisdiction to consider the age discrimination claims and the disability discrimination claims based upon PCP 1, 2 and 6. Those claims were therefore struck out. The Tribunal added that, in the alternative, those claims were not made out and would in any event have been dismissed.
The Tribunal also found that the disability discrimination claims based upon PCP 3, 4 and 5 were not made out and dismissed them. The claim for unlawful deductions from wages was likewise found not to be made out and was dismissed. The judgment contains no separate remedy analysis or award.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The Tribunal held that, having regard to the applicable statutory time limits, it did not have jurisdiction to consider the age discrimination claims based upon PCP 1, 2 and 6. It stated in the alternative that those claims were not made out and were dismissed. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal held that, having regard to the applicable statutory time limits, it did not have jurisdiction to consider the disability discrimination claims based upon PCP 1, 2 and 6. It stated in the alternative that those claims were not made out and were dismissed. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination claims based upon PCP 3, 4 and 5 were found not to be made out and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim of unlawful deductions from wages was found not to be made out and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.