Case 3301465/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms H Kendrick (Solicitor) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301465/2024
- Decision date
- 21 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wyeth Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 8 January 2025, Employment Judge Wyeth held that the claimant's complaint of disability discrimination was out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The judgment records that the respondent was British Airways plc and that the claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal also held that the claimant's complaints of unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract were out of time. For those complaints, it found that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented within time and that it would not be reasonable to extend time.
For the avoidance of doubt, the tribunal dismissed the claim in its entirety because all complaints were out of time and it had no jurisdiction to hear them. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Held to be out of time; the tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Held to be out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time and it would not be reasonable to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Held to be out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time and it would not be reasonable to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- just and equitable to extend time
- reasonably practicable
- reasonable 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.