Case 1807392/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Razak v Costco Wholesale (UK) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1807392/2020
- Decision date
- 12 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Razak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that, at all material times, the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment identifies the conditions relied on for that finding as anxiety and autism.
The tribunal also determined the claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages. It held that the complaint had been brought outside the applicable time limit and that it was not not reasonably practicable to have presented it in time. On that basis, the claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records a finding that the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of anxiety and autism. It does not state any final liability outcome on a disability discrimination complaint in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the complaint was presented outside the applicable time limit and that it was not not reasonably practicable to bring it in time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 6 Equality Act 2010
- not reasonably practicable
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.