Case 2401252/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Farnsworth v Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401252/2021
- Decision date
- 13 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Farnsworth
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, the Tribunal recorded that the claim as originally presented contained a complaint of direct race discrimination, so no amendment was needed to add that complaint. It also found that Mrs Farnsworth was a disabled person at the material time, March to July 2019, by reason of tinnitus within section 6 and Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2010.
The Tribunal held that the claim was not presented within three months of the acts complained of. It further held that the claim was not presented within any further period that it considered just and equitable under section 123(1)(a) and (b) of the Equality Act 2010.
On that basis, the claim was dismissed and the final hearing dates listed for May 2023 were vacated. No remedy was awarded at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment says the claim as originally presented contained a complaint of direct race discrimination and that no amendment was required; the claim was dismissed because it was out of time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment found that Mrs Farnsworth was a disabled person at the material time, March to July 2019, by reason of tinnitus; the claim was then dismissed because it was not presented within three months and was not extended as just and equitable. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 6 and Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(a) and (b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
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.