Case 2301232/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301232/2018
- Decision date
- 15 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Siddall
- Venue
- London South
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with preliminary issues on limitation and strike out. It found that the claimant's employment ended no later than 4 January 2018, giving a primary limitation date of 3 April 2018, and that she started ACAS early conciliation on 5 March 2018 and received a certificate on 9 March 2018. Although the tribunal accepted that the claim was not received until 10 April 2018, it accepted the claimant's evidence that she understood early conciliation to have stopped the clock and was unaware that a further time limit applied afterwards. Applying the reasonable practicability test, and referring to Dedman and Kauser, the tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim by 9 April 2018 and that the claim was brought within a further reasonable period.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal, breach of contract (notice pay), holiday pay and arrears of wages claims could proceed. It also held that the redundancy payment claim was in time and could proceed. These rulings were procedural only; the merits of those claims were not determined at this hearing.
The disability discrimination allegations were treated differently. The claimant had leukaemia and the tribunal accepted that this amounted to a disability under the Equality Act 2010, but the claim form contained no particulars of discrimination. The later particulars were served late and raised new matters said to concern a pay reduction and meeting on 1 December 2017, together with a letter dated 5 June 2018 sent with the response. The tribunal found no material from which it could conclude that the pay reduction or the meeting was because of disability, and it treated the 5 June 2018 letter as part of the response to the proceedings rather than a separate act of discrimination. Leave to amend was refused under Selkent, and to the extent that any disability discrimination claim was included in the claim form it was struck out under Rule 37 for non-compliance with an order, not being actively pursued, and having no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim held in time; may proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Held in time; may proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of wages claim held in time; may proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim found in time and may proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Time-limit objection rejected; claim may proceed, merits not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Further particulars were late and raised new matters; leave to amend was refused and any disability discrimination claim in the ET1 was struck out under Rule 37. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- reasonable practicability
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances [1973] CA
- Mrs S Kauser v ASDA Stores Limited UKEAT 0165/07/RN
- Selkent
- Rule 37
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.