Case 2600397/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Pearce v The Royal Leicestershire, Rutland and Wycliffe Society for the Blind and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600397/2022
- Decision date
- 15 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs S Pearce
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 14 and 15 February 2024 before Employment Judge M Butler sitting alone, the tribunal struck out several claims brought by Mrs S Pearce against the Royal Leicestershire, Rutland and Wycliffe Society for the Blind and Ms S Hoath. The unfair dismissal claim, framed as an argument that employment should have been extended to meet the two-year qualifying period under section 108 ERA 1996, was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal also struck out the claim for non-compliance with section 1(2) ERA 1996 and the claim under regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 concerning rest breaks, each on the same basis.
The tribunal also struck out the race discrimination claims, described as direct and indirect discrimination, and the direct disability discrimination claim, again as having no reasonable prospect of success. The religion or belief discrimination claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment states that the remaining claims would proceed to the final hearing. No remedy was awarded in this preliminary judgment, and the tribunal recorded that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in writing within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at preliminary hearing; framed as an argument that employment should have been extended to meet the two-year qualifying period under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim for non-compliance with section 1(2) ERA 1996 struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim under regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 concerning rest breaks struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct and indirect race discrimination claims struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Claim struck out because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- section 108 ERA 1996
- section 1(2) ERA 1996
- regulation 12 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.