Case 1802570/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Kelly v P&O North Sea Ferries Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802570/2022
- Decision date
- 28 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McAvoy Newns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Kelly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Kelly’s employment ended on 17 November 2021. The tribunal treated the claims as having been received on 10 June 2022, after an initial error in naming the respondent was corrected. The issue for the hearing was whether the unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims had been presented in time, and if not whether time should be extended. The claimant said she had been pursuing an internal appeal, had health problems including Crohn’s disease and bile acid malabsorption, and had received support from UNITE, the CAB and later ACAS and insurance-backed solicitors.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented by 16 February 2022. It found the claimant had access to UNITE and could have asked for advice about lodging a claim and the effect of starting ACAS early conciliation by that date. It also found that she had already managed to engage with the respondent’s appeal process and attend appeal meetings before the limitation date. Although the tribunal accepted that she had medical conditions and noted the respondent’s concession that she met the statutory definition of disability, it was not persuaded by the absence of medical evidence that those conditions prevented a timely claim. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
On the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal applied the just and equitable test and concluded that time should not be extended. It relied on the length of the delay, the lack of a good reason for it, the claimant’s limited engagement in progressing the claim, and the fact that the claim remained insufficiently particularised. The tribunal also considered the likely prejudice to both sides, including the passage of time since dismissal and the possibility that relevant witnesses might no longer be available, as well as the need for further case management if the claim were allowed to proceed. The discrimination claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time: the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented by 16 February 2022, so it would not consider it out of time under s.111(2) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed as out of time: the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time under s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.207B(4) ERA
- s.140B(4) Equality Act 2010
- Porter v Bandbridge
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Marks & Spencer v Williams-Ryan
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd
- Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Robinson v Post Office
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.