Case 3305423/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Susak, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305423/2022
- Decision date
- 16 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Ord Appearances
- Venue
- Huntingdon
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr S Susak, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing concerned limitation issues only. The claimant had resigned with immediate effect on 7 January 2022 and did not begin ACAS Early Conciliation until 5 May 2022, with the claim presented on 10 May 2022. It was accepted that the constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims had been presented out of time.
For the constructive unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. It accepted that she had personal difficulties, medical issues and was taking medication, but found that she had been working full time in a role requiring accuracy, had previously contacted ACAS, had access to a computer, and could have made reasonable enquiries about bringing a tribunal claim and the applicable time limits.
For the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal found that the claimant had not provided a proper explanation for the delay and did not accept that she only became able to think clearly enough to bring a claim at the end of April or beginning of May 2022. The tribunal found that she was prompted to act by the respondent's letters of 29 April 2022 and concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time. Both claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a constructive unfair dismissal claim. It was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination complaint was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Porter v Bandridge Limited
- Wall's Meat Company Limited v Khan
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Company Limited
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Habinteg Housing Association v Holleron
- Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Limited
- Edomobi v La Retraite RC Girls School
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.