Case 2204596/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Pryz v The Doctor’s Laboratory Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204596/2022
- Decision date
- 9 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Henderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Pryz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in London Central on 5 January 2023, Employment Judge Henderson sat alone and gave oral reasons. The written judgment records only a preliminary limitation issue in relation to the claimant's disability discrimination claim.
The tribunal found that, for the purposes of the disability discrimination claim, the date of dismissal was 5 April 2022. On that basis, the claim was outside the time limit in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal nevertheless exercised its discretion to extend time on the just and equitable basis under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010, and held that it therefore had jurisdiction to consider the claims brought by the claimant. The judgment does not record any merits determination or monetary award, and notes that neither party requested written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary time-limit ruling only. The tribunal held that the dismissal date for the disability discrimination claim was 5 April 2022, that the claim was outside the time limit in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010, and that time should be extended on a just and equitable basis under section 123(1)(b) so the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the claim(s) brought. No merits outcome is recorded in the written judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable basis
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.