Case 1807253/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Johnson v Carrs of Sheffield (Manufacturing) Limited PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 1807253/2020
- Decision date
- 13 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Johnson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this public preliminary hearing on 10 September 2021, Employment Judge Shepherd dealt with the claimant's attempt to amend her claim to add disability discrimination based on her own alleged anxiety and depression, and with the respondent's applications concerning the claimant's direct discrimination by association and direct age discrimination claims. The claimant's pleaded case already included unfair dismissal, discrimination by association with her late husband, direct age discrimination, wrongful dismissal, holiday pay and notice pay.
The tribunal refused the amendment sought for the claimant's own-disability claim. It held that the proposed section 15 discrimination arising from disability and reasonable adjustments claims were not within the claim form, that the claimant would not have had the protected characteristic of disability at the time of the alleged treatment or dismissal, and that allowing the amendment would cause substantial prejudice to the respondent. The judge noted that the claimant might now suffer from anxiety and depression, but the relevant question was her status at the material time.
On the claim of direct discrimination by association with the claimant's late husband's disability, the tribunal refused strike out but found the allegation had little reasonable prospect of success. Applying Rule 39 and citing Van Rensburg v Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, the tribunal ordered a £100 deposit as a condition of continuing to advance that claim.
The tribunal refused the respondent's applications in relation to the direct age discrimination claim. It did not accept that the claim had no reasonable prospects or little reasonable prospects of success, so no strike out order and no deposit order were made. The tribunal recorded the claimant's case that a wrist injury and a medical report dated 19 August 2020 led to her dismissal, and her contention that she would not have been dismissed if she had been younger; the appeal response had referred to her having no intention of returning to work and as having 'effectively retired'.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant's application to amend the claim to add disability discrimination based on her own alleged anxiety and depression, including section 15 discrimination arising from disability and a reasonable adjustments claim, was refused. The tribunal held the claim was not in the claim form, that she would not have been a disabled person at the time of the alleged treatment or termination, and that allowing the amendment would cause substantial prejudice to the respondent. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination by association with the claimant's late husband's disability was not struck out. The tribunal held that the allegation had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered a £100 deposit as a condition of continuing to advance it. | Other | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | The respondent's applications to strike out the direct age discrimination claim and to require a deposit were refused. The tribunal was not satisfied that the claim had no reasonable prospects or little reasonable prospects of success. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 39 deposit order threshold
- Van Rensburg v Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames
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.