Case 3201914/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms B Corley v Lambourne End Centre for Outdoor Learning — 2021

Case reference: 3201914/2020
Decision date: 14 April 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge B Elgot Representation

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms B Corley

Respondent

Lambourne End Centre for Outdoor Learning

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a remote preliminary hearing before Employment Judge B Elgot on 13 April 2021. The respondent conceded that the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 during her employment from 23 October 2019 to 4 February 2020, in relation to long term recurring anxiety and depression. The disability discrimination and sex discrimination claims had been presented out of time, but the tribunal extended time to 23 July 2020, the date the claims were lodged, under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 so that they could proceed to the full merits hearing listed for 12 to 14 January 2022.

The tribunal struck out and dismissed the claim for damages for breach of contract, described as wrongful dismissal and failure to give notice pay. It held that the claim was out of time under Regulation 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994, declined to extend time under Regulation 8B, and found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the relevant time period.

The claims for unpaid deductions from wages and holiday pay were held to have been presented within the prescribed time limits and were allowed to proceed to a full hearing. Under Rule 39 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the tribunal also found that the sex discrimination allegation had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £150 as a condition of continuing to advance that claim.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The respondent conceded that the claimant was a disabled person within s.6 Equality Act 2010 during her employment from 23 October 2019 to 4 February 2020, in relation to long term recurring anxiety and depression. Although the claim was presented out of time, the tribunal extended time to 23 July 2020 under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 so that it could proceed to the full hearing.	Other	Disability	—
Sex discrimination	The sex discrimination claim was presented out of time but was permitted to proceed to the full hearing because the tribunal considered it just and equitable to extend time to 23 July 2020. Under Rule 39, the tribunal also found the allegation had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered a £150 deposit as a condition of continuing to advance the claim.	Other	Sex	—
Breach of contract	The claim for damages for breach of contract, described as wrongful dismissal and failure to give notice pay, was struck out and dismissed. The tribunal held that it was presented outside the time limits in Regulation 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994, declined to extend time under Regulation 8B, and found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.	Struck out	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The claim for unpaid deductions from wages was held to have been brought within the prescribed time limits and was listed to proceed to a full hearing. No merits determination was made in this judgment.	Other	—	—
Holiday pay	The holiday pay claim was held to have been brought within the prescribed time limits and was listed to proceed to a full hearing. No merits determination was made in this judgment.

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.