Case 2402746/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Conway v Ashbridge School Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402746/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Conway
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the allegation of discrimination arising from disability at paragraph 4.2.1 of the list of issues because it was not presented within the applicable time limit. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit.
The Tribunal also dismissed the complaints of harassment related to disability, discrimination arising from disability at paragraph 4.2.2 of the list of issues, and failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability. The written judgment records that those complaints were not well-founded, with oral reasons given at the hearing and no written reasons included.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Allegation of discrimination arising from disability at 4.2.1 of the list of issues was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to disability was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability at 4.2.2 of the list of issues was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.