Case 2500840/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Peace v Commissioners for H M Revenue and Customs — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500840/2020
- Decision date
- 21 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Peace
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss E Peace, had previously brought three disability discrimination claims that were heard to a full merits judgment before Employment Judge Aspden and members in August 2019 and were dismissed. In the present case, she presented a further claim on 26 April 2020 using an incorrect early conciliation certificate number. The tribunal rejected that claim form under the early conciliation rules, finding that the error was accepted but that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the claim to proceed.
The claimant then presented a second claim form on 2 October 2020 advancing disability discrimination, victimisation and constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal held that all of the disability discrimination allegations, and most of the victimisation allegations, could and should have been brought in the earlier proceedings. It found that the Henderson v Henderson doctrine, res judicata and abuse of process applied, and noted that two victimisation allegations had already been determined in the Aspden judgment. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's case that the matters formed a continuing act of discrimination.
Separately, the tribunal held that the second claim was out of time. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the unfair dismissal claim in time, noting that she had in fact filed the earlier April 2020 claim and was aware of the early conciliation issue in July 2020 but did not present the later claim until 2 October 2020. In relation to the discrimination and victimisation complaints, the tribunal concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time, taking account of delay, the earlier advice the claimant had received from CAB and solicitors, and the prejudice to the respondent. The tribunal also said that it would not have struck the claim out at that stage for no reasonable prospect of success, but would have been minded to consider a deposit order if the claims had not already been dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim form submitted on 26 April 2020 rejected under rule 12 because the early conciliation certificate number on the ET1 was incorrect; the tribunal was not satisfied it would be in the interests of justice to accept it. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed on the basis that the allegations could and should have been brought in earlier proceedings, and were also out of time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed; the tribunal held that most of the victimisation allegations were barred by Henderson v Henderson abuse of process, and two allegations had already been determined in the earlier Aspden judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed because the constructive unfair dismissal case depended on the same discrimination and victimisation allegations, which were rejected as abusive and/or out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- rule 12D(a) / rule 12(2)ZA
- Henderson v Henderson
- res judicata
- abuse of process
- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- s.33 Limitation Act 1980
- rule 37(1)(a)
- rule 39(1)
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.