Case 2404919/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Nawrot Lisowska v SCA Investments Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2404919/2024
- Decision date
- 27 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Nawrot Lisowska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered at a public preliminary hearing whether the claim or parts of it should be dismissed as out of time, the respondent's strike out or deposit order applications, and the claimant's application to amend. The claimant had been employed as a Production Operative and was dismissed on 3 May 2024 for stated gross misconduct relating to alleged eating of food on the factory floor and taking food without permission.
The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal and notice pay complaints were not presented within the applicable time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable to present them in time. It also found that the Equality Act complaints were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The claim was dismissed as out of time and permission to amend was refused. Because of that outcome, the tribunal did not need to decide the respondent's strike out or deposit order applications, although it recorded that it would not have struck out complaints but would have considered deposit orders for complaints identified as having little reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay complaint dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under Equality Act 2010 section 13 dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under Equality Act 2010 section 15 dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination under Equality Act 2010 section 19 dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under Equality Act 2010 sections 20 and 21 dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. |
Legal tests applied
7 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- Equality Act 2010 section 13
- Equality Act 2010 section 15
- Equality Act 2010 section 19
- Equality Act 2010 sections 20 and 21
- Equality Act 2010 section 26
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.