Case 2300943/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P McKenna v BP Express Shopping Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300943/2020
- Decision date
- 25 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self
- Panel members
- Mrs S Dengate, Mr S Townsend
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P McKenna
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 22 July 2022 before Employment Judge Self, with Mrs S Dengate and Mr S Townsend sitting as lay members, the tribunal held that Ms P McKenna was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at all material times because of her back condition. The tribunal also recorded that the claim lodged on 9 March 2020 was rejected under Rule 12(1)(da), but that the defect had been rectified and the claim was to be treated as presented on 20 July 2022.
The tribunal dismissed all disability discrimination claims as out of time, finding that they had not been brought within the statutory time limit and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. It reached the same time-limit conclusion for the age discrimination claims other than the issue identified at 20(f) of the list of issues.
The age discrimination claim at 20(f) was found not well-founded and dismissed. The tribunal also dismissed the claim that Ms McKenna had been unfairly constructively dismissed, holding that it was not well-founded. No monetary remedy was awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Found to be out of time; the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. The claimant was found disabled at all material times on account of a back condition. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | All age discrimination claims apart from the issue referred to at 20(f) were dismissed as out of time, with no just and equitable extension of time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | The age discrimination claim referred to at 20(f) of the list of issues was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claim that the claimant had been unfairly constructively dismissed was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 12(1)(da)
- statutory time limit
- just and equitable
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.