Case 2415607/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss F Master v CAFCASS At: Manchester — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415607/2020
- Decision date
- 4 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss F Master
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss F Master was a disabled person at the relevant times for the purposes of her disability discrimination complaints only because of osteoarthritis of the hands. It rejected reliance on widespread rheumatoid arthritis and on stress and depression for that purpose.
The original claim was dismissed on time-limit grounds. The tribunal held that it was not presented in time under the Equality Act time limit applied in the judgment, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. No merits determination of the discrimination complaints appears in the judgment.
The claimant also applied to amend the claim to add constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal held that the proposed new cause of action was also out of time under the Employment Rights Act time limit applied in the judgment, that there was no basis for extending time, and that the amendment should be refused. The claim was dismissed accordingly.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the claimant was a disabled person at the relevant times only by virtue of osteoarthritis of the hands, and not in respect of widespread rheumatoid arthritis or stress and depression. The original disability discrimination claim was found to be out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act time limit
- s.123(1)(b) just and equitable extension
- s.111(2)(a) ERA 1996 time limit
- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996 extension
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.