Case 2402199/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Wong v Plymouth Grove Primary School — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402199/2024
- Decision date
- 17 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Wong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Childe considered whether the claimant’s direct discrimination claim because of disability, based on Mr Cook’s failure to reply to the claimant’s letter of 21 March 2024, had been presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal held that this claim was in time and would therefore proceed to the final hearing.
The judgment also records that issues about any other alleged discriminatory acts, whether there was conduct extending over a period, whether the claim was presented within three months plus any early conciliation extension from the end of any such period, and whether any out-of-time claims should nevertheless proceed on a just and equitable basis, were left to be considered at the final hearing.
No remedy was assessed at this stage, and the written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. The decision is confined to the timeliness issue and does not determine liability on the merits of the discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the direct disability discrimination claim relating to Mr Cook’s failure to reply to the claimant’s letter of 21 March 2024 was presented within time and would proceed to final hearing. Merits were not determined. | Upheld | Disability | — |
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.