Case 2217674/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Young v London Borough of Islington — 2025
- Case reference
- 2217674/2023
- Decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Henderson Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Young
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing judgment. The tribunal held that the claimant's first claim form, lodged on 9 November 2023, was not in the prescribed form, but accepted that she did not receive notification of its rejection until 5 December 2023 and promptly resubmitted the claim on 6 December 2023. The unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions claims were found to be within time.
For claims relating to acts before 7 June 2023, the tribunal considered whether time should be extended. It found that the claimant knew the relevant time limits and had not given a sufficient explanation for late claims, so it did not generally extend time. However, it allowed specified later or continuing allegations to proceed, including parts of the protected disclosure detriment, direct race and sex discrimination, and race harassment claims.
On disability status, the respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled by sciatica and asthma at the relevant times. The tribunal found that she had not proved that cataracts amounted to a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period. Disability discrimination and reasonable adjustment allegations depending on cataracts were therefore removed. The tribunal declined to make a deposit order.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal decided at a preliminary hearing that the unfair dismissal claim was within time and could proceed; it did not determine liability. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal decided that the unauthorised deductions claim was within time and could proceed; it did not determine whether a deduction was made. The pleaded sum was £1,775, but no award was made. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Most alleged protected disclosure detriments were out of time, but allegations at paragraphs 5.1.2, 5.1.8, 5.1.9 and 5.1.10 were allowed to proceed. Liability was not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Some direct race discrimination allegations were out of time, but specified allegations, including aspects of paragraphs 5.1.2, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 and 8.3.7, were allowed to proceed. Liability was not determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Some direct sex discrimination allegations were out of time, but specified intersectional race and sex allegations, including paragraphs 8.3.2, 8.3.3 and 8.3.7, were allowed to proceed. Liability was not determined. | Other | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The respondent accepted disability status for sciatica and asthma, but the claimant did not establish disability status for cataracts. Disability discrimination allegations relating to cataracts were removed; one direct disability discrimination allegation linked to paragraph 5.1.8 appears to have been treated as in time, but liability was not determined. |
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- conduct extending over a period
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Concentrix CVG Intelligent Contact Limited v Obi
- section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 40 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.