Case 2304827/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Williams v Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304827/2019
- Decision date
- 1 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 29 September 2020, heard remotely by CVP before Employment Judge Truscott QC sitting alone, the tribunal considered whether Ms Williams was disabled for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010, strike-out issues, and case management. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal also dealt with an application to amend the claim to add a trade union time-off complaint.
The tribunal held that Ms Williams had not established that she was disabled by reason of stress, anxiety or depression at the relevant time. It accepted that the medical evidence showed earlier periods of stress and anxiety between August 2016 and January 2017, and depression from September 2018, followed by treatment and a good recovery with a return to work. It found no evidence that stress, anxiety or depression had the required substantial and long-term adverse effect until around May 2019, and that the claimant was unable to give sufficiently specific evidence about the period relied on.
The direct disability discrimination allegations were struck out because they were inadequately particularised and had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal referred to the alleged treatment said to have occurred in March, April and May 2019, and to the 12 July 2019 letter inviting the claimant to an investigation meeting, but concluded that the respondent could not properly understand or answer the case. It also held that the allegations were out of time.
The reasonable adjustments claim was also struck out. The PCP relied on was said to be an excessive workload on or around March 2019, but the tribunal held that the claim was out of time and that there was no basis on the material before it to extend time. The trade union detriment claim was likewise struck out for inadequate particularisation, time bar, and lack of reasonable prospect. The tribunal refused the amendment application for a separate claim alleging failure to allow time off for trade union duties, and it considered but did not make a deposit order.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim. The tribunal held that the claimant had not established that she was disabled by reason of stress, anxiety or depression at the relevant time; it also found the allegations inadequately particularised and out of time, including the complaints said to arise from March to May 2019 and the 12 July 2019 investigation letter. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim. The alleged PCP was an excessive workload on or around March 2019; the tribunal said the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, was out of time, and there was no basis for extending time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Trade union | Detriment on account of trade union activities. The tribunal found the allegations were not properly particularised, were out of time, and had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant's application to amend to add a separate claim for time off for trade union duties was refused. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
22 references- s.6(1) Equality Act 2010
- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- White v University of Manchester fair notice
- Hack v St Christopher's Fellowship
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- HM Prison Service v Dolby
- Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd v Reilly
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Ahir v British Airways plc
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Ali v Office of National Statistics
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- s.168 and s.170 TULRCA 1992
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Hutchison v Westward Television Ltd
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones
- Hemdan v Ishmail
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.