Case 3301341/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person assisted by McKenzie Friend Ms A Sutton For the v Mr Kennedy - Counsel — 2022
- Case reference
- 3301341/2021
- Decision date
- 20 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person assisted by McKenzie Friend Ms A Sutton For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on limitation and disability status, not a merits judgment. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence, supported by GP letters, that from about August 2019 she was suffering significant mental ill-health and was unable to draft and submit an ET1 within the ordinary time limits. It held that for the notice pay, unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay claims it was not reasonably practicable to present them in time, and that they were issued within a reasonable further period after allowing for ACAS early conciliation.
For the discrimination claim, the tribunal applied the just and equitable test under the Equality Act 2010 and extended time. It noted the medical evidence about anxiety, depression, PTSD and treatment, while also recording that the claimant had been able to contact ACAS in 2019 and later make a job application in December 2020. The tribunal nevertheless accepted that her mental illness explained the delay in bringing the tribunal claim and held that the claims were issued in time.
The tribunal then heard evidence on disability and found that, during the period of employment from 9 April to 19 June 2019, the claimant had physical and mental impairments for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010. It accepted evidence of longstanding hypermobility, knee and back problems, and mental health difficulties including anxiety, depression and PTSD, and found that these affected day-to-day activities such as standing, walking, lifting, communicating, concentrating and shopping. Whether there was a continuing act of discrimination, including the post-termination reference complaint in December 2020, was left for a further preliminary hearing. No liability findings on the underlying claims and no monetary award were made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Preliminary limitation issue only. The tribunal held it was not reasonably practicable for the notice pay breach of contract claim to have been presented in time and that it was presented within a reasonable further period. Merits were not decided. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary limitation issue only. The tribunal held it was not reasonably practicable for the unpaid wages claim to have been presented in time and that it was presented within a reasonable further period. Merits were not decided. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Preliminary limitation issue only. The tribunal held it was not reasonably practicable for the unpaid holiday pay claim to have been presented in time and that it was presented within a reasonable further period. Merits were not decided. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis and found the claimant was a disabled person during the material time. Whether there was a continuing act, including the December 2020 reference complaint, was reserved to a later hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- reasonably practicable test
- just and equitable test
- s.18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office four questions
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.