Case 1805172/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Mather v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1805172/2019
- Decision date
- 19 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Mather
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the claimant did not present her unfair dismissal complaint within the period set out in section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It therefore could not consider that complaint and dismissed it.
The Tribunal held that the claimant's unlawful disability discrimination complaint was presented within the period it considered just and equitable under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. That complaint was permitted to proceed, with separate case management orders made for its further conduct.
The claimant's breach of contract complaint and complaint about entitlement to a redundancy payment were dismissed on withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was dismissed because it was not presented within the time limit in section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Tribunal could not consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal decided the complaint of unlawful disability discrimination was presented within the period it considered just and equitable under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010, and that the complaint may proceed. Merits were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010
- 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.