Case 3201632/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Navarro Molina v Accor UK Business & Leisure Hotels Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201632/2020
- Decision date
- 25 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Navarro Molina
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was conducted remotely by Cloud Video Platform on 24 March 2021 before Employment Judge B Elgot. The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s claims were for disability discrimination including victimisation. It dismissed those claims without reaching the merits because they had been presented outside the time limits in s123 Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal further held that it was not just and equitable to extend time. As a result, the disability discrimination and victimisation claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. No compensatory or injury-to-feelings award was made.
The tribunal also dealt with the respondent’s costs application arising from an earlier hearing on 20 January 2021. That application was stayed until 7 April 2021 on the basis that the claimant’s representative had agreed to pay the full amount of costs claimed, and it was to be treated as withdrawn if no application was made by either party by that date.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed on jurisdiction: the Tribunal held the claims were presented outside the time limits in s123 Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed on the same limitation basis as the disability discrimination claims; the Tribunal did not determine the claim on the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend 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.