Case 2415122/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Brown v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415122/2021
- Decision date
- 1 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing, the tribunal determined limitation issues affecting the claimant's discrimination claims. It found that the disability discrimination claims formed part of a continuing act and had been brought outside the statutory time limit, but decided that it was just and equitable to extend time.
As a result, the disability discrimination claims were allowed to proceed to a final hearing. The tribunal separately found that the age discrimination claims formed part of a second continuing act and were also brought out of time, but it was not just and equitable to extend time for those complaints, which were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held the disability discrimination claims were part of a continuing act and were presented out of time, but extended time on a just and equitable basis so the claims could proceed to a final hearing. No final liability determination was made on those claims in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held the age discrimination claims were part of a second continuing act and were presented out of time. It refused a just and equitable extension of time, and the age discrimination complaints were dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- continuing act
- just and equitable extension of time
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.