Case 2304435/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Robson, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2304435/2018
- Decision date
- 19 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freer Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr S Robson, Solicitor For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 9 July 2019, the Tribunal recorded that the Claimant's unfair dismissal claim and her claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments were presented out of time. It held that it had no jurisdiction to consider those two claims, so no merits findings were made on them.
The Tribunal also recorded that the Claimant's discrimination arising from disability claim had been presented out of time, but that it was just and equitable to consider it. This judgment deals only with the time-limit and jurisdiction issues; it records no substantive liability findings and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim. Presented out of time; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claim. Presented out of time, but the Tribunal held it was just and equitable to consider the claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable
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.