Case 1802283/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Hargreaves (solicitor) v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1802283/2020
- Decision date
- 18 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr P Hargreaves (solicitor)
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing heard by videolink on 18 December 2020 before Employment Judge JM Wade. The tribunal considered the period within which it was just and equitable for the claimant's Equality Act complaints to have been brought, and did not determine the substantive merits of the complaints at this stage.
The tribunal held that the just and equitable period extended up to and including 27 April 2020. The complaints were therefore allowed to proceed to a hearing listed for April 2021 unless otherwise disposed. No remedy was assessed in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held it was just and equitable for the claimant's Equality Act complaint to have been brought up to and including 27 April 2020; the substantive complaint was listed to proceed to a later hearing. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held it was just and equitable for the claimant's Equality Act complaint to have been brought up to and including 27 April 2020; the substantive complaint was listed to proceed to a later hearing. | Upheld | 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.