Case 2602648/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Horne v Asda Stores Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602648/2018
- Decision date
- 8 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Horne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal changed the respondent's name to ASDA Stores Limited after the claimant accepted that this was her employer. The tribunal also refused the claimant's application to join Emma Simes as a respondent, noting that the only identified allegation against her related to 29 May 2018, was significantly out of time, and that the claimant still had a live claim and potential remedy against her employer.
The tribunal considered the claimant's application to amend the claim. Applying the Presidential Guidance and Selkent factors, it allowed the amendments other than the allegation concerning an incident on 13 January 2016, which it found was significantly out of time. The tribunal considered the remaining amendments to add factual allegations to existing complaints of discrimination rather than substantially changing the claim.
The case management summary recorded that the claimant was employed by the respondent as a warehouse operative and claimed disability discrimination. The respondent admitted disability by reason of hip dysplasia, femoroacetabular impingement, osteoarthritis in both hips, and hip labral tears in both hips, but denied the claims. The substantive issues for a later final hearing included time limits, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, reasonable adjustments, and harassment related to disability.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The preliminary hearing identified claims of direct disability discrimination under Equality Act 2010 section 13, discrimination arising from disability under section 15, and failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21. Liability was not determined; most amendments were allowed, but the proposed 2016 allegation was not allowed. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The preliminary hearing identified harassment related to disability under Equality Act 2010 section 26 as an issue for the final hearing. Liability was not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Other | The claimant's application to join Emma Simes as a respondent was refused. The tribunal found the proposed claim against Ms Simes was significantly out of time and that the claimant retained a live claim and potential remedy against ASDA Stores Limited. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's application to amend was allowed except in relation to the alleged incident in 2016, which the tribunal found was significantly out of time. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Presidential Guidance - General Case Management (2018)
- Rule 34 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- Equality Act 2010 section 123(1)(a) and (b)
- Equality Act 2010 section 13
- Equality Act 2010 section 15
- Equality Act 2010 sections 20 and 21
- Equality Act 2010 section 26
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.