Case 2304924/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs Patricia Jalel v Zotefoams plc — 2023

Case reference: 2304924/2020
Decision date: 30 January 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Abbott Representation
Venue: London South

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs Patricia Jalel

Respondent

Zotefoams plc

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a reserved judgment after a preliminary hearing on time limits under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal recorded that the discrimination and victimisation complaints were not presented within the primary three-month limit on any view, with the latest act complained of treated as 8 March 2019 and the ET1 presented on 4 September 2020. It therefore considered whether it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b).

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Preliminary jurisdiction ruling only: the tribunal extended time under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 and held the complaint could proceed. The merits of the discrimination allegation were not determined.	Upheld	Disability	—
Race discrimination	Preliminary jurisdiction ruling only: the tribunal extended time under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 and held the complaint could proceed. The merits of the discrimination allegation were not determined.	Upheld	Race	—
Victimisation	Preliminary jurisdiction ruling only: the tribunal extended time under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 and held the complaint could proceed. The merits of the victimisation allegation were not determined.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

6 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.