Case 2300125/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Shah v Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust Heard — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300125/2019
- Decision date
- 16 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Lay
- Panel members
- Ms N Christofi, Mr M Cann
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Shah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting before Employment Judge Pritchard with lay members Ms N Christofi and Mr M Cann, heard the case on 12 to 16 October 2020. It decided unanimously that the Claimant's claims for harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments were presented outside the statutory time limit and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to consider them.
The Tribunal also dismissed the Claimant's disability discrimination claim that she had been discriminated against because of something arising in consequence of her disability. No written reasons were provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no request for written reasons appears in the record.
The Claimant's unfair dismissal claim was found not well-founded and was dismissed. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The Tribunal held that the harassment claim was presented outside the statutory time limit and that it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal held that the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments was presented outside the statutory time limit and that it had no jurisdiction to consider it. The separate disability claim that the Claimant was discriminated against because of something arising in consequence of her disability was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.