Case 2501961/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Parker v Tin Arts Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501961/2021
- Decision date
- 17 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pitt Representation
- Venue
- via Common Video Platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Parker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs R Parker brought claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and unlawful deductions from wages. The hearing was confined to limitation issues. The tribunal recorded that she had autism and functional neurological symptoms, had support from MAIN, her mother and CBT, and had worked flexibly in later employment. It also found that she had searched for legal advice in July 2021, obtained advice from a solicitor, and then contacted the North East Law Centre in December 2021 before presenting her ET1 on 21 December 2021.
On the unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions claims, the tribunal treated the relevant limitation date as 26 June 2021. It accepted that the claimant’s autism and neurological symptoms made processing and recalling events more difficult, but held that it was reasonably practicable for her to present the claims in time. In reaching that conclusion it relied on her awareness of employment rights, the earlier involvement of MAIN, the issue of a P45 and P60, her use of the internet, and the fact that she continued working in another job. It further held that, even if that were wrong, the claims were not presented within a further reasonable period.
On the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal applied the section 123 Equality Act 2010 test and Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust 2021 ICR D5, CA. It noted that the claimant relied on acts over a number of years, including a February 2021 online meeting and an email in July 2021. The tribunal accepted that the February 2021 allegation could potentially amount to discrimination for the purposes of the time-limit exercise, but found the claim substantially out of time overall. It also held that the July 2021 email was not explained as a discriminatory act and was probably not such an act.
Taking into account the claimant’s personal circumstances, the delay between July and December 2021, and prejudice to both sides, the tribunal concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time for the disability claim. All claims were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on time-limit grounds. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within the three-month limit and, in any event, that it was not brought within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed on time-limit grounds under s.23 ERA 1996. The tribunal held the claim was out of time, that it was reasonably practicable to present it within time, and that it was not made within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed under the Equality Act 2010 time limit. The tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time; it accepted that the claimant had autism and functional neurological symptoms but found the July 2021 incident probably was not a discriminatory act and the earlier allegations were substantially out of time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust 2021 ICR D5, CA
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.