Case 2204579/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Madhani v Dye and Durham Corporation & and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204579/2021
- Decision date
- 8 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss R Madhani
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Madhani's constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because it was not presented within the time limit in section 111(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the complaint before the end of that period, and it found that the complaint was not presented within any further period it considered reasonable.
The Tribunal separately held that the discrimination arising from disability claim relating to events of 16 April 2021 was presented in time under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010. It reached that conclusion on the basis that the claim was brought within such further period as the Tribunal thought just and equitable. The written judgment does not decide the merits of that discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The Tribunal dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction. It found the claim was not presented within the time limit in section 111(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present it earlier, and in any event it was not presented within a further period the Tribunal considered reasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal held that the discrimination arising from disability claim relating to events of 16 April 2021 was presented in time under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010, because it was brought within a further period the Tribunal thought just and equitable. The judgment did not determine the merits of that claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
- s.123(1) 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.