Case 1802185/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hurley v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard: BY CVP — 2020
- Case reference
- 1802185/2020
- Decision date
- 13 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hurley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote public preliminary hearing by CVP before Employment Judge JM Wade on 12 November 2020. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Ali. The tribunal noted some connection difficulties, but recorded that with breaks a fair hearing could take place.
The claimant's age discrimination complaints were withdrawn before the tribunal at the hearing and were dismissed on that basis. No substantive finding on the merits of those age discrimination complaints was made.
The tribunal then considered limitation in relation to the claimant's remaining disability discrimination complaints, which concerned alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments on 16 and 18 December 2019. It held that, applying a just and equitable approach, the complaints presented on 20 April 2020 were in time.
The judgment did not determine the merits of the disability discrimination claims. It recorded that the remaining complaints would be determined at a final hearing unless otherwise resolved.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The claimant's age discrimination complaints were dismissed on withdrawal before the tribunal at the preliminary hearing on 12 November 2020. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the complaints of disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments on 16 and 18 December 2019 were in time on a just and equitable basis; the merits were left to a final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable
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.