Case 2206345/2021 · Employment Tribunal

In person, accompanied by his mother For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 2206345/2021
Decision date: 2 December 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Adkin Representation
Venue: London Central

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person, accompanied by his mother For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Dr M Alexander worked for Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust as a trainee doctor from 7 August 2019 to 6 April 2020. Disability was conceded by the respondent in April 2022, and the hearing on 28 September 2022 before Employment Judge Adkin dealt with the claimant's application to amend the list of issues and the respondent's application to strike out or seek a deposit order on time-limit grounds. The judge recorded that the claim form had alleged disability discrimination, injury to mental health, and a purported Data Protection Act 2018 claim, and that the case had been through several revised lists of issues.

The application to amend was granted in part and refused in part under Selkent, Galilee and Vaughan. The judge allowed several direct disability discrimination, harassment, discrimination arising from disability and reasonable-adjustment allegations to proceed in amended or shortened form, including the 4b and 4e allegations, 7a to 7c, 11a, 11d, 12b(i)-(vi), 12d, 12e, 13b to 13d, 14a, 16 and 19e. Amendments were refused where they were treated as new, incoherent, too late, or prejudicial, including 4f, the indirect discrimination claim, 11b to 11c, 12a, 12b(vii)-(viii), 12c, 13a, 14b to 14e, and the whole breach of contract claim. The judge also held that the tribunal had no jurisdiction over the purported Data Protection Act 2018 claim.

On limitation, the judge held that the claim was in time for the allegation about the alleged unfair conclusion of the grievance process in August 2021, but out of time for the earlier August 2019 to May or June 2020 allegations unless the claimant could show a continuing act or obtain a just and equitable extension under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The judge considered there was probably no reasonable prospect of proving a continuing discriminatory act between July 2020 and the start of the grievance on 6 April 2021, but refused the strike-out or deposit application because the Covid-19 pressures and the DSAR material received on 20 May 2021 could support a just and equitable extension. No merits finding and no monetary remedy were determined at this stage, and a further preliminary hearing was listed for 13 December 2022 to decide the limitation issue.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The tribunal allowed some direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and reasonable-adjustments allegations to be amended or re-framed, including points 4b, 4e, 7a-7c, 11a, 11d, 12b(i)-(vi), 12d, 12e, 13b-d, 14a, 16 and 19e, but refused others including 4f, the indirect discrimination amendment, 11b-11c, 12a, 12b(vii)-(viii), 12c, 13a and 14b-e. The respondent's strike-out/deposit application on limitation was refused, and the time-point issue was left for a further preliminary hearing.	Other	Disability	—
Harassment	Harassment relating to disability was allowed to proceed in respect of the 17 December 2019 email and the related December 2019 comments, but the concealment allegation at 7d was refused.	Other	Disability	—
Breach of contract	Permission to add the new breach of contract claim was refused. The judge noted it had not been intimated in the ET1 and was a late, complex new claim.	Other	—	—
Other	The purported Data Protection Act 2018 claim was outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

13 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.