Case 2500210/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Sophie Blench v Asda Stores Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500210/2024
- Decision date
- 22 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Ann
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- Ann Tarn, Gerry Gallagher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sophie Blench
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's complaints of harassment related to disability and direct disability discrimination in respect of the conduct of Phil Kinsella, Lee Charlton and Richard Garside, finding that those complaints were not well-founded.
The Tribunal also dismissed the complaints of harassment and direct disability discrimination in respect of the conduct of Glenn Miller and Dom Chawla because they were not brought within the three-month period starting with the date of the acts complained of, or within such further period as the Tribunal considered just and equitable. Oral reasons were given at the hearing and no written reasons are included in the judgment text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Complaints of harassment related to disability concerning Phil Kinsella, Lee Charlton and Richard Garside were dismissed as not well-founded. Complaints concerning Glenn Miller and Dom Chawla were dismissed as out of time and not brought within such period as the tribunal considered just and equitable. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaints of direct disability discrimination concerning Phil Kinsella, Lee Charlton and Richard Garside were dismissed as not well-founded. Complaints concerning Glenn Miller and Dom Chawla were dismissed as out of time and not brought within such period as the tribunal considered just and equitable. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- three-month time limit
- just and equitable 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.