Case 2302276/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302276/2021
- Decision date
- 4 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Adam McIntosh-Roffey, advanced complaints of disability discrimination against Eridge Green Bespoke Kitchens and Living Space Limited. The tribunal heard the matter in London South on 4 November 2022 before Employment Judge A M Buchanan. The respondent was represented by Mr Matthew Sellwood of Counsel and the claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal decided that the complaints had been presented after the end of the three-month period beginning with the acts complained of, and also after the end of any further period that the tribunal considered just and equitable. On that basis, applying section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaints.
The disability discrimination complaints were therefore dismissed. The judgment records no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held the complaints were brought after the end of the three-month limitation period and after any period the tribunal considered just and equitable, so it lacked jurisdiction under section 123 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- three-month limitation period
- just and equitable extension
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.