Case 2402401/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Ahmed v Alternative Futures Group Ltd PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402401/2020
- Decision date
- 18 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buchanan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Ahmed
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, the tribunal found that Mrs S Ahmed had a disability for Equality Act purposes during the relevant period, accepting that she had a mental impairment described in the evidence as trauma and that it had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities. The tribunal relied on the medical records and the claimant's disability impact statement, and noted that an expert medical report would have been helpful but was not available.
The disability discrimination complaint was limited by time. The tribunal held that allegations before January 2019 were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for those matters. It held that the complaint could proceed only in respect of acts between January 2019 and February 2020, which it treated as conduct extending over a period. The tribunal accepted that 'trauma' was being used as an umbrella label for the claimant's mental health history and said the focus was on effect rather than the precise medical cause.
The unfair dismissal complaint was held to be in time. The respondent's strike out and deposit order application was refused because the tribunal could not say, on the material before it and without hearing evidence, that either the unfair dismissal claim or the reduced disability discrimination claim had little or no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was therefore allowed to proceed to a final hearing, with the earlier events remaining relevant only as background.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant had a disability for Equality Act purposes during the relevant period, but held that allegations before January 2019 were out of time and not subject to a just and equitable extension. The complaint may proceed only in respect of acts occurring between January 2019 and February 2020; the preliminary hearing did not determine liability on the merits. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint was in time. It refused the respondent's strike out and deposit order application, so the unfair dismissal claim was allowed to proceed to a final hearing; the merits were not decided. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
- Walker v Sita Information Networking Computing Ltd UKEAT/0097/12
- sections 94-98 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.