Case 3301652/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stanley Lewry v Hays Specialist Recruitment Ltd and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 3301652/2020
- Decision date
- 19 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Stanley Lewry
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought disability discrimination complaints arising from an assignment which began on 19 August 2019 and ended on 2 September 2019. The claim was presented on 30 December 2019. The parties agreed it was outside the ordinary Equality Act 2010 time limit, and the claimant relied on his mental health as the reason for the delay.
The Tribunal accepted that the claimant was unwell in September 2019, but found that his mental health did not prevent him from bringing the claim in time. It noted that after 9 September 2019 he was able to go on holiday, correspond in detail with the respondents, research and take advice on legal claims, contact ACAS, attend GP appointments, apply for roles and attend interviews. The Tribunal found an unexplained delay after the end of October 2019, when the claimant knew his rights, had the information he needed and had indicated that he would start ACAS early conciliation.
The Tribunal concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 and therefore it had no jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination claims. Although unnecessary to decide, it also considered the second respondent's separate jurisdiction argument and concluded that the claimant was not employed by the second respondent and would not have been able to proceed against it under ss.39 or 41 Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal held the disability discrimination claims were presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it had no jurisdiction. It also stated, in the alternative, that the claim against the second respondent would not have proceeded under ss.39 or 41 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the ET1 included an unfair dismissal claim and says this was rejected by the Tribunal, but this reserved judgment did not set out the basis or a substantive determination of that claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.41 Equality Act 2010
- s.83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010
- James v Greenwich London Borough Council
- Abbey Life Assurance Company Limited v Tansell
- Muschett v HM Prison Service and Brook Street (UK) Ltd
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.