Case 3202427/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Mellor v Canon UK Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202427/2020
- Decision date
- 1 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Mellor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Mellor was employed by Canon UK Limited as a service co-ordinator from 1 December 1998 to 9 March 2020. Early conciliation ran from 7 May 2020 to 7 June 2020, so the tribunal found the claim form should have been presented by 9 July 2020. It was lodged on 17 September 2020, outside the applicable time limits.
The hearing was limited to limitation and jurisdiction. For the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims, the tribunal found that the claimant had contacted ACAS promptly and without difficulty, and that it was practicable to present the claim form in time. It did not accept that caring for her elderly and unwell mother during the pandemic prevented timely presentation. Those claims were therefore not entertained on the merits.
For disability discrimination, the tribunal applied the just and equitable extension test under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It accepted that the claimant's circumstances were challenging, but found that this did not show she was unable to present the claim in time and was not enough to justify extending time. The tribunal also relied on the fact that she knew at dismissal that she intended to bring a claim and had been able to contact ACAS within the primary limitation period. The disability discrimination claim was not heard on the merits because it was out of time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented outside the applicable time limit. The opening judgment paragraph says the claim was 'dismissed'; the conclusions section says it was 'struck out for being out of time'. The tribunal found it was practicable to present the claim in time and did not accept that caring responsibilities prevented a timely claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Presented outside the applicable time limit. The opening judgment paragraph says the claim was 'dismissed'; the conclusions section says it was 'struck out for being out of time'. The tribunal applied the same limitation reasoning as for unfair dismissal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Presented outside the primary time limit. The opening judgment paragraph says the claim was 'dismissed'; the conclusions section says it was 'struck out for being out of time'. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's circumstances were challenging but was not satisfied that this made it just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Palmer v Southend on Sea BC [1984] ICR 372
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434
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.