Case 2601026/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Creasey v Maximus UK Services Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 2601026/2025
- Decision date
- 30 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
- Venue
- Midlands East ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Creasey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Creasey's claims were all submitted out of time. Her claim against Maximus UK Services Limited for breach of s.80G Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed because the Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time and therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear it.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for harassment related to disability and associative discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend time for those claims. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | The claim for breach of s.80G Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was submitted out of time and the Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to bring it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The harassment related to disability claim was dismissed as out of time because the Tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment describes this as associative discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. It was dismissed as out of time because the Tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable test
- just and equitable test for extending time
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.