Case 2204587/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Ms S Kandola v Department for Work and Pensions — 2023

Case reference: 2204587/2022
Decision date: 26 September 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Employment Judge

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms S Kandola

Respondent

Department for Work and Pensions

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing, the respondent had conceded that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal also found that the current claim was not barred by duplication with the claimant's 2018 claim, which had been dismissed on withdrawal in March 2019, and recorded that the claimant was not bringing an indirect discrimination claim.

The tribunal found that a number of pre-2022 allegations, including specified direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, reasonable adjustment, victimisation and harassment allegations, were outside the relevant time limit. It declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds, noting the claimant's disabilities and support, her awareness of tribunal time limits from mid-2018, and the age of many allegations.

The tribunal recorded that the April 2022 matter involving an indication of demotion or termination was in time and could proceed, and allowed specified amendments concerning later matters. No remedy was awarded in this preliminary judgment.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal accepted the claimant was disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010, held specified pre-2022 disability discrimination allegations were out of time with no just and equitable extension, and allowed specified amendment allegations to be included. Merits of the in-time or amended claims were not finally determined in the extracted judgment.	Other	Disability	—
Harassment	The tribunal held specified harassment allegations were out of time and did not extend time, while allowing specified harassment amendment allegations to be included. Merits were not finally determined in the extracted judgment.	Other	Disability	—
Victimisation	The tribunal held specified victimisation allegations were out of time and did not extend time, while allowing one specified victimisation amendment allegation to be included. Merits were not finally determined in the extracted judgment.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.