Case 2401688/2022 · Employment Tribunal
D Yupet Respondent Department for Work & Pensions v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2401688/2022
- Decision date
- 15 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
1 namedClaimant
D Yupet Respondent Department for Work & Pensions
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 13 February 2023, Employment Judge Batten, sitting alone, considered the claimant’s disability and race discrimination complaint against the Department for Work and Pensions. The tribunal held that the claim had not been presented in accordance with section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal also found that it was not just and equitable to extend time for presentation of the claim. On that basis, the discrimination claims were dismissed.
The decision was sent to the parties on 15 February 2023. The judgment was given orally at the hearing, and the written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the claim was not presented in time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the claim was not presented in time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
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.