Case 2404730/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Ruane v Wm Morrisons Supermarkets Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2404730/2024
- Decision date
- 7 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Ruane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this public preliminary hearing, Employment Judge M Butler sitting alone refused the application to amend the claim to add direct sex discrimination. The claimant was represented by Mr P Murray and the respondent by Mr N Singer of Counsel.
The tribunal held that the disability discrimination claims had been presented outside the relevant primary time limit. It decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear those claims and dismissed them. The tribunal made the same jurisdictional finding in relation to the victimisation claim, which was also dismissed because it had been presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The unfair dismissal complaint was also found to have been presented outside the relevant primary time limit. The tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable to present that complaint within time, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear it and dismissed the claim. The judgment records that all claims in the case were dismissed and that the final hearing listed for 30 March 2026 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held the disability discrimination claims were presented outside the relevant primary time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held the victimisation claim was presented outside the relevant primary time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal complaint was presented outside the relevant primary time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- just and equitable
- reasonably practicable
- primary 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.