Case 2406697/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A O’Connor v John Lewis plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 2406697/2024
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A O’Connor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment following a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Dunlop concerning the respondent's applications on time limits, strike out and deposit orders. The claimant, who had worked at the respondent's Liverpool store since October 2011, was dismissed on 8 April 2024 following a capability meeting after periods of sickness absence relating to a number of medical conditions. Her internal appeal concluded on 2 May 2024 and the claim was presented on 9 October 2024, outside the primary time limit for the unfair dismissal and dismissal-related disability discrimination complaints.
On time limits, the Tribunal found the redundancy payment claim was brought in time under s.163 ERA 1996. For the unfair dismissal complaint, the Tribunal extended time under s.111 ERA 1996, accepting that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within the primary period and that it was presented within such further time as was reasonable. For the disability discrimination complaints insofar as they related to the dismissal, the Tribunal extended time on the just and equitable basis under s.123 EqA 2010. Limitation in respect of pre-dismissal discrimination matters is reserved to the final hearing. The Tribunal took into account the claimant's mental health difficulties, ongoing therapy, an unstable and at times unsafe home situation, and intermittent internet access during the relevant period.
The Tribunal refused the respondent's applications to strike out and for a deposit order in respect of the unfair dismissal complaint, the s.15 EqA 2010 (discrimination arising from disability) complaint relating to dismissal, the reasonable adjustments complaint as particularised in Employment Judge Batten's List of Issues, and the redundancy payment claim. The respondent's strike out and deposit order applications in respect of the remaining complaints were adjourned pending further clarification of the claims, with a further preliminary hearing reserved to Employment Judge Dunlop on 1 April 2025. No remedies were determined.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. Tribunal extended time under s.111 ERA 1996 (not reasonably practicable to present in time, and presented within a further reasonable period) and refused the respondent's applications to strike out and for a deposit order. The complaint was not determined on the merits; it proceeds to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. In relation to the dismissal on 8 April 2024, time was extended on the just and equitable basis under s.123 EqA 2010. Limitation arguments concerning pre-dismissal events are adjourned to the final hearing. Strike out and deposit order applications were refused in respect of the s.15 EqA 2010 (discrimination arising from disability) complaint relating to dismissal and the failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint. The complaints were not determined on the merits. | Other | Disability | — |
| Redundancy | Preliminary hearing only. The Tribunal held the redundancy payment claim was brought within the s.163 ERA 1996 time limit. The respondent's strike out and deposit order applications in respect of this claim were refused. The claim was not determined on the merits; it proceeds to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
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.