Case 2211486/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2211486/2022
- Decision date
- 2 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 2 February 2024, Employment Judge Baty found that Miss Delgado Sanchez was not a disabled person at any point during the relevant period of May 2022 to 12 August 2022. The tribunal therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear her disability discrimination claim and dismissed it.
The tribunal also said that, if the claim had not already been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, it would have struck out the claim in its entirety because of the unreasonable conduct of the proceedings by the claimant, her non-compliance with tribunal orders, and the fact that the claim had not been actively pursued. The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay the respondent costs of £10,000, with £4,000 payable immediately and £6,000 payable by 31 July 2024. The full merits hearing listed for 20 to 24 May 2024 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person at any point during the relevant period of May 2022 to 12 August 2022, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. The tribunal added that, had the claim not been dismissed on that basis, it would have struck it out in its entirety for unreasonable conduct of the proceedings, non-compliance with tribunal orders, and failure actively to pursue the claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,000
- across all upheld claims
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.