Case 1601609/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs F. Kennedy v Sewells Training and Consultancy Ltd HELD BY: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601609/2019
- Decision date
- 12 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Mr. C. Stephenson, Mr. F. Collier
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs F. Kennedy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs F. Kennedy brought disability discrimination claims against Sewells Training and Consultancy Ltd. The tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan and lay members Mr. C. Stephenson and Mr. F. Collier, heard the case on 8 to 11 November 2021 and gave judgment on 11 November 2021.
The tribunal held that the claims were presented out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time to the date of presentation. On that basis the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider the claims and dismissed them.
In the alternative, the tribunal found that if it had jurisdiction, the claims of direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments would also have been dismissed because they were not well-founded. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally and no written reasons would follow unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant's disability discrimination claims were presented out of time and the tribunal held it would not be just and equitable to extend time. In the alternative, the tribunal said claims of direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments would each have been dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable extension of time
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.