Case 2303534/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Hayley Merritt v St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303534/2022
- Decision date
- 5 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Hayley Merritt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe open preliminary hearing on 5 May 2023 was listed to decide whether Ms Hayley Merritt's complaint of disability discrimination, relating to the withdrawal or rescinding of a job offer by St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, had been presented in time.
The respondent had originally argued that the offer was withdrawn on 19 April 2022, which would have made the claim outside the three-month time limit. The claimant contended that the offer was withdrawn on 28 April 2022, which would mean the claim was within time.
At the hearing the respondent conceded that the offer had been withdrawn on 28 April 2022 and that the claim relating to its withdrawal was therefore in time. The tribunal gave judgment that the claim was presented within the time limit in section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment records no determination of the merits of the disability discrimination complaint and no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary judgment only decided that the disability discrimination claim relating to withdrawal or rescinding of a job offer was presented in time; the merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
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.