Case 2305614/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Wright v Arriva London South Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2305614/2019
- Decision date
- 26 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Matthews Representation
- Venue
- In Chambers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing conducted by consent in chambers on 22 and 25 January 2021, Employment Judge Matthews held that Miss Wright's unfair dismissal claim under ss.94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 had not been presented within the time limit in s.111 of that Act. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear that claim and it was dismissed.
The tribunal also held that Miss Wright's disability discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 had been presented in time under s.123 of that Act, so the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear them at the full hearing. The judge found that Miss Wright had or had had a disability, namely Type 1 Diabetes, although any dispute about the period during which she had that disability remained to be decided. No costs were sought, and the judge recorded that no further case management was needed before the full hearing listed for 19 to 21 April 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time under s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary ruling only. The tribunal held the disability discrimination claims were presented in time under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and that it had jurisdiction to hear them; the merits were left for the full hearing. The tribunal found Miss Wright had or had had Type 1 Diabetes, although any dispute about the period of disability remained unresolved. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.