Case 3312567/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Villiers v Carrington House Surgery — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312567/2022
- Decision date
- 18 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Villiers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Ms D Villiers was a disabled person at all times relevant to the claim and that her employment terminated on 14 April 2022. It does not set out any substantive findings on the underlying discrimination complaints themselves.
The tribunal held that all of the complaints itemised in the list of issues were presented outside the time limit in section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. However, it decided that it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b) for all of those complaints.
The effect of the decision was that the complaints were treated as in time up to 11 October 2022, the date on which the claim form was presented. No monetary award is recorded in this written judgment, and the tribunal notes that written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was disabled at all material times. It held that all complaints itemised in the list of issues were presented outside the time limit in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010, but it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b) to 11 October 2022, the date the claim form was presented. The written record does not determine the substantive merits of those complaints. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
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
- Open official judgment 4 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.