Case 3303045/2018 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 3303045/2018
Decision date: 22 August 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hyams
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the reserved hearing on 6 August 2019, the claimant pursued discrimination claims said to arise from disability, race and sex, together with an unlawful deduction from wages claim concerning alleged underpayment of sick pay. The tribunal recorded that the discrimination case had been clarified to include a section 20 reasonable-adjustment complaint and a section 15 claim about a written warning dated 16 May 2016, as well as allegations that she had been told she was too emotional to do the job role and should walk the streets to bring in more business.

The tribunal held that any Equality Act 2010 complaint before 6 September 2017 was out of time unless it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b). Applying the authorities it cited, including Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston, Midland Bank v Samuels, Bowden v Ministry of Justice, Averns v Stagecoach in Warwickshire and Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan, it refused to extend time. It found that the claimant knew that tribunal claims existed, that she continued working until 4 October 2016, and that she had shown practical thinking by March 2017 when she raised retirement on medical grounds, a like-for-like redundancy and job share.

The tribunal also noted that the sex and race allegations were not set out until 27 October 2018, more than two years after the alleged comments, and considered that the resulting delay would prejudice the respondent. It therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the disability, race or sex discrimination claims.

By contrast, the tribunal accepted that the wages claim concerning alleged unpaid sick pay could fall within the definition of wages in section 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It relied on the respondent's own pay statement evidence, including a salary advance figure of £6,721, concluded that the claim was properly arguable on the papers, and refused to make a deposit order. The claim was directed to proceed to a half-day documentary hearing, and no merits finding or monetary award was made at this stage.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The tribunal held there was no just and equitable basis to extend time under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination claim. The claim, as clarified, included alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments and/or unfavourable treatment arising from disability in relation to a written warning dated 16 May 2016.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Race discrimination	The tribunal held the race discrimination allegations were out of time and refused to extend time under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. The alleged comments relied on were said to be that the claimant should walk the streets to bring in more business and that she was too emotional to do the job role, and the tribunal noted that these allegations were first particularised on 27 October 2018.	Dismissed	Race	—
Sex discrimination	The tribunal held the sex discrimination allegations were out of time and refused to extend time under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal noted that the alleged comments were first particularised on 27 October 2018, more than two years after the alleged remarks.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal held that the alleged shortfall in sick pay could fall within the definition of wages in section 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, found the claim was not shown on the papers to have little reasonable prospect of success, and said no deposit order was appropriate. The claim was directed to proceed to a half-day documentary hearing; no merits finding or award was made at this stage.	Other

Legal tests applied

9 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.