Case 2305949/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Garth Walcott v John Lewis plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305949/2023
- Decision date
- 17 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tueje REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Garth Walcott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in public, the Tribunal considered the Respondent's applications concerning the Claimant's disability discrimination claim. The Respondent applied to strike out the claim on the basis that it was out of time. The Tribunal found that the claim had not been presented within the applicable time limit, but that it was just and equitable to extend time, so the strike out application on that ground was refused.
The Tribunal also refused the Respondent's application under rule 37(1)(a) to strike out the disability discrimination claim on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. It further refused the Respondent's application under rule 39 for a deposit order on the basis that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. The claim was therefore allowed to proceed; no final determination of liability or remedy was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment only. The Tribunal refused the Respondent's applications to strike out the disability discrimination claim and for a deposit order; the claim was permitted to proceed and the merits were not finally determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- just and equitable to extend the time limit
- rule 37(1)(a)
- rule 39
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.