Case 2400790/2020 · Employment Tribunal

in person For the v Mr Barron (Solicitor) — 2021

Case reference: 2400790/2020
Decision date: 28 January 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Johnson Appearances

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

in person For the

Respondent

Mr Barron (Solicitor)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Ms R Kelly, brought complaints including disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal against Blackburn with Darwen Council. At the preliminary hearing on 21 January 2021, the tribunal said it could not determine whether the claimant was disabled under section 6(1) Equality Act 2010 because she had not given full disclosure of her medical evidence before the hearing. It then held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination complaint because it was presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010.

The respondent's application to strike out the constructive unfair dismissal complaint under Rule 37(1)(a) failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. However, the alternative application for a deposit order under Rule 39(1) succeeded because the tribunal was satisfied that the complaint had little prospect of success. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was therefore allowed to proceed to final hearing subject to a deposit order and revised case management orders.

The tribunal also reduced the listed final hearing from five days to four days, with the hearing to take place on 23, 24, 25 and 26 August 2021 only. No compensation or other monetary award was made in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination complaint because it was presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The first preliminary issue, whether the claimant was disabled under section 6(1) Equality Act 2010, could not be determined because the claimant had not given full disclosure of medical evidence before the hearing.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Constructive dismissal	The respondent's strike-out application under Rule 37(1)(a) was refused because the tribunal was not satisfied that the complaint had no reasonable prospects of success. The alternative application for a deposit order under Rule 39(1) succeeded because the tribunal was satisfied that the complaint had little prospect of success. The claim was not finally determined and was listed to proceed to final hearing subject to a deposit order.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 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.