Case 3300069/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr William Storey, Executor For the v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 3300069/2025
- Decision date
- 27 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr William Storey, Executor For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment following a Public Preliminary Hearing before Employment Judge M Warren. Mr Kevan Dean, who had worked for E.SURV Limited for 26 years until his retirement on 31 May 2023, died on 8 August 2024. Proceedings were issued by his brother-in-law Mr William Storey as executor on 10 January 2025, advancing claims of disability discrimination (relying on Pseudobulbar Dysarthria), detriment for protected disclosures, breach of contract and unpaid wages relating to a dispute over shares. The protected disclosure claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.
On the Respondent's application, the Tribunal considered whether the Claimant had any reasonable prospect of persuading a Tribunal that it would be just and equitable to extend time for the disability discrimination claim, which was accepted to be out of time. Applying the discretion under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the authorities including Morgan, Adedeji, Robertson v Bexley, Caston, Jones, Kumari and Robinson v Post Office, the Judge concluded that detailed analysis of events, time frames and the question of whether a fair trial was possible led inevitably to the conclusion that there were no reasonable prospects of persuading a Tribunal to extend time. The disability discrimination claim was therefore struck out under Rule 38(1)(a).
The Case Management Orders made by EJ Davey on 12 November 2025 for preparation of the Final Main Hearing were revoked. The remaining breach of contract and unpaid wages claims were listed for a further one-day Public Preliminary Hearing on 7 May 2026 to consider jurisdiction (including the effect of Mr Dean's death and s.206 ERA 1996 and the Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994), strike out for no reasonable prospects, or whether a Deposit Order should be made. The November 2027 Final Main Hearing was left in the list for the moment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) on the basis that the Claimant had no reasonable prospects of persuading a Tribunal that it would be just and equitable to extend time. The claims were clearly out of time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim of detriment for making protected disclosures was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim relates to a dispute over approximately £9,000 of shares acquired under an Employee Incentive Share Scheme. Not determined at this Preliminary Hearing; listed for a further Public Preliminary Hearing on 7 May 2026 to consider jurisdiction, strike out and/or deposit order. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Wages claim arising from the same shares dispute. Not determined at this hearing; reserved for the 7 May 2026 Public Preliminary Hearing to consider jurisdiction, strike out and/or deposit order. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan [2018] EWCA Civ 640
- Adedeji v United Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2021] ICR D5
- Robertson v Bexley Community Services [2003] IRLR 434
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire v Caston [2010] IRLR 327
- Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EWCA Civ 1568
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EAT 132
- Robinson v Post Office [2000] IRLR 804
- Apelogun-Gabriels v London Borough of Lambeth [2002] IRLR 116
- s.206 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.