Case 2303636/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs K Mesuria v Eurofins Forensic Services Limited — 2023

Case reference: 2303636/2021
Decision date: 3 March 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Wright Representation

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs K Mesuria

Respondent

Eurofins Forensic Services Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mrs K Mesuria's disability discrimination allegations were dismissed because the tribunal held they were presented out of time. It found that the relevant acts crystallised by September 2019 or, at the latest, by February 2021, that there was no continuing act, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal rejected the argument that time should run from receipt of the Unum user guide on 6 May 2021, and it said the respondent's explanation was lack of awareness of the Unum policy rather than disability.

On the individual equality complaints, the tribunal found the alleged failure to contact or support the claimant during sickness absence, the failure to apply the Unum policy sooner, the alleged underpayment of salary, the varied terms on re-engagement, and the holiday-pay-related complaints were each decisions or omissions in 2019 with continuing consequences, not ongoing acts. It also rejected the discrimination arising from disability and indirect discrimination complaints on the same limitation basis.

The victimisation complaint under s.27 Equality Act 2010 concerned the draft settlement agreement exchanged after the respondent had been told, during early conciliation, that the claimant was alleging discrimination. The tribunal found the respondent's refusal to remove certain clauses and its position on tax treatment were part of protecting its legal position in settlement negotiations, not detriments because the claimant had done a protected act, and no binding settlement agreement was reached.

For the remaining money claims, the tribunal said the holiday-pay point under the Working Time Regulations was not particularised and could not proceed because the claimant's employment had not terminated, as the dismissal had been rescinded in October 2019. It also found the unauthorised deduction allegation unclear, noted that no sum was claimed in the schedule of loss, and said there was no entitlement to a payment in lieu of holiday pay while the claimant remained employed.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and indirect discrimination allegations were held out of time. The tribunal found there was no continuing act, refused a just and equitable extension, and said the respondent's omissions were explained by lack of awareness of the Unum policy rather than disability.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Victimisation	The alleged detriments were refusal to remove clauses from a draft settlement agreement and refusal to offer injury-to-feelings sums without tax deductions. The tribunal found the respondent was protecting its legal position in settlement negotiations, not reacting to a protected act.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Holiday pay	The holiday-pay point under the Working Time Regulations was not particularised and depended on holiday due on termination, but the claimant's employment had not terminated because the dismissal had been rescinded.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal said it was unclear what sum was being claimed, no amount was pleaded in the schedule of loss, and there was no entitlement to payment in lieu of holiday pay while the claimant remained employed.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

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.