Case 3311126/2023 · Employment Tribunal
SP v RAD Ltd and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311126/2023
- Decision date
- 7 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Annand Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
4 namedClaimant
SP
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Reading on 28 January 2025 and 13 March 2025 before Employment Judge Annand, the tribunal dealt with preliminary issues relating to the Claimant's complaints of direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability. It found those complaints had not been presented within the applicable time limit, but it was just and equitable to extend time, so the claims could proceed.
The tribunal found that the Claimant was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of anxiety and depression from July 2022 and throughout the relevant period of the claims, August 2022 to mid-February 2023. It also found that the Claimant was disabled by colitis from September 2023 onwards, but that was after the relevant period. The supplied judgment record records only these preliminary findings and does not set out a substantive liability decision or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination. The tribunal found the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit, but it was just and equitable to extend time so the claim could proceed. No substantive merits decision is recorded in the supplied text. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal found the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit, but it was just and equitable to extend time so the claim could proceed. No substantive merits decision is recorded in the supplied text. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.
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.