Case 3309634/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Dlugosz v Bayfield’s Opticians — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309634/2022
- Decision date
- 17 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Dlugosz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 17 April 2023 before Employment Judge Anstis sitting alone, the tribunal recorded that Ms A Dlugosz was a disabled person at all material times for her claim by reason of epilepsy. The tribunal also recorded that her depression did not amount to a disability at any material time for the claim.
The respondent applied to strike out parts of the claimant's disability discrimination claim on the basis that those parts had been brought outside the tribunal's usual time limit. That application was dismissed, so the challenged parts of the disability discrimination claim were not struck out on jurisdictional timeliness grounds.
This judgment is an interim decision and does not determine the substantive merits of the disability discrimination allegations. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Interim judgment on the respondent's strike-out application in the disability discrimination claim; the application was dismissed. The judgment does not decide the underlying merits of the discrimination claim. | Other | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.