Case 2305640/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr J Munro, Solicitor — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305640/2023
- Decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott KC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing determined whether the claimant's disability discrimination claim should be struck out as out of time. The claimant had been diagnosed with bowel cancer shortly after starting employment, had ongoing treatment including chemotherapy, and said his son contacted ACAS and submitted the ET1 because he was unable to do so.
The Tribunal found the respondent's termination letter was contradictory because it referred both to immediate termination and to 31 May 2023 as the last day of employment. Relying on the respondent's own statement in that letter, the Tribunal determined the effective date of termination was 31 May 2023, making the claim in time.
In the alternative, if the effective date of termination had been 18 May 2023, the claim would have been five days late. The Tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence about his ill health and determined that, if needed, it was just and equitable to extend time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The Tribunal decided the direct disability discrimination claim was presented in time, or alternatively that it was just and equitable to extend time, so it had jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The merits of the discrimination claim were not decided. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 140B of the Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- London Borough of Southwark v Afolabi
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.