Case 2402546/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs Elaine Scott v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd — 2024

Case reference: 2402546/2023
Decision date: 30 July 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Shotter
Panel members: Mr F Crane, Mr J Murdie

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs Elaine Scott

Respondent

Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal granted the respondent permission to rely on its amended grounds of response. It found that the claimant was not disabled with the mental and physical impairment of perimenopause during the relevant period from June 2022 to January 2023, so it had no jurisdiction to consider the disability discrimination complaints under sections 13, 15, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010.

In the alternative, the tribunal found that the direct disability discrimination allegation about the 17 June 2022 performance grade was presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It also found that the claimant had not proven facts from which it could conclude that she was treated less favourably because of age, sex or disability, was treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of disability, was harassed, or was victimised.

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint, holding that it was not well founded. No remedy award was made.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled with the mental and physical impairment of perimenopause in the relevant period and dismissed claims under sections 13, 15, 26 and 27 Equality Act 2010. In the alternative, parts of the disability discrimination claim were out of time and not extended, and the tribunal found the claimant had not proven facts from which discrimination could be concluded.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Age discrimination	The tribunal found the claimant had not proven facts from which it could conclude that she was treated less favourably because of age.	Dismissed	Age	—
Sex discrimination	The tribunal found the claimant had not proven facts from which it could conclude that she was treated less favourably because of sex.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Harassment	The harassment claim was pleaded as part of the disability discrimination claims under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the respondent's conduct did not have the proscribed effect.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Victimisation	The victimisation claim was pleaded as part of the disability discrimination claims under section 27 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the claimant did not do a protected act and had not proven facts from which it could conclude that section 27 was contravened.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

6 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.

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.