Julie Hinds v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2025

The hearing was converted to consider the respondent's applications to strike out the claims, or alternatively for deposit orders, on limitation grounds. The claimant's claims included disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment, victimisation and direct age discrimination. The respondent argued that earlier allegations were out of time and did not form conduct extending over a period; the claimant argued that the limitation issues should be determined after evidence at the final hearing.

The Tribunal considered the time-limit provisions under the Equality Act 2010, the rules on strike out and deposit orders, and authorities emphasising caution when deciding limitation points in discrimination cases at a preliminary stage. It noted that the case involved disputed facts, different alleged wrongdoers, a lengthy period, and no witness evidence at the preliminary hearing.

The Tribunal held that the respondent had not shown that the claimant's arguments on conduct extending over a period or a just and equitable extension had no reasonable prospect of success. It also was not persuaded that any claim had little reasonable prospect of success for deposit-order purposes. The applications for strike out and deposit orders were refused, with jurisdiction and merits issues left for the final hearing.