Case 2407197/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Monk v Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs — 2021
- Case reference
- 2407197/2021
- Decision date
- 14 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Monk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Monk brought disability discrimination complaints against Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, pleaded as harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010 and failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 to 21 Equality Act 2010. Employment Judge Ross held that the claims were presented out of time.
The tribunal further held that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. As a result, the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination claims and they could not proceed. No merits findings or monetary remedy were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found it was presented out of time and held it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010, so it could not proceed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim pleaded as failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 to 21 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found it was presented out of time and held it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010, so it could not proceed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable extension under section 123 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.