Case 2219328/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K. Spasova v Kingdom Cleaning Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2219328/2024
- Decision date
- 24 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leonard-Johnston REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K. Spasova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in public on 20 June 2025, Employment Judge Leonard-Johnston considered Ms K. Spasova's claims against Kingdom Cleaning Ltd for direct disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The claimant appeared in person, assisted by her son and an interpreter, and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal found that both claims were presented outside the applicable time limit. It further held that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. On that basis, both claims were dismissed.
The judgment does not record any monetary award, and it was sent to the parties on 24 June 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim. Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim. Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable extension of time
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.