Case 2406303/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S McParland v Hexagon Care Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2406303/2023
- Decision date
- 6 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S McParland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's strike-out applications. The tribunal refused to strike out the unfair dismissal claim because there was a genuine and credible dispute about the effective date of termination which could make the claim in time, and because the claimant's earlier withdrawn unfair dismissal claim related to a period before any dismissal had occurred.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims. It found that those claims had no reasonable prospect of being found to have been presented within the applicable time limits, no reasonable prospect of being treated as a continuing act that would bring them in time, and no reasonable prospect of the claimant being granted the necessary extensions of time.
The judgment did not award compensation or determine the unfair dismissal claim on its merits. It recorded that the only claim proceeding to the final hearing was the unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The gov.uk listing identifies Sex Discrimination, and the judgment states that all Equality Act 2010 claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of being found in time or of receiving the necessary extensions of time. The provided PDF text is truncated, so the precise pleaded allegations are not fully visible. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to withdrawn or potential Equality Act 2010 disability-related allegations, including reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability, and states that the claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims were all struck out. The provided PDF text is truncated, so the precise pleaded disability claim labels are not fully visible. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent's application to strike out the unfair dismissal claim was refused. The tribunal did not determine the merits of that claim; it stated that the claim can proceed to hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Chandhok v Tirkey [2015] ICR 527
- Hawkins v Atex Group Ltd [2012] IRLR 807
- Aziz v FDA [2010] EWCA Civ 304
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2003] IRLR 96 CA
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal v Keeble [1997] IRLR 336
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.