Case 2602148/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Garratty v Derbyshire County Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602148/2022
- Decision date
- 8 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Garratty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing on 8 August 2023, Employment Judge McTigue sitting alone considered Mr A Garratty's disability discrimination claim against Derbyshire County Council. The tribunal found that the claim had been presented out of time.
The tribunal refused to extend time, holding that it was not just and equitable in all the circumstances to do so. On that basis it said there was no jurisdiction to hear the claim and it was dismissed. The tribunal also stated that the claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the disability discrimination claim was presented out of time, refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis, and stated there was no jurisdiction to hear the claim. It also said the claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- just and equitable extension of time
- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.