Case 3313229/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the First v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3313229/2023
- Decision date
- 27 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered preliminary issues including time limits, the claimant's amendment application, and whether the claimant had been employed by Sodexo or the Trust. The correct employer issue was not determined because there was insufficient hearing time, and the Trust was not dismissed from the proceedings without a hearing on that issue.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim was struck out because it was presented out of time and the tribunal did not find it had been presented within a reasonable time. For the discrimination claims, the tribunal found that the delay resulted from errors in sending the claim form to ACAS and then to an incorrect tribunal email address, but concluded that time should be extended for the direct disability discrimination claim and that the direct sex discrimination amendment should be allowed.
The tribunal did not decide liability on the discrimination claims and did not make any remedy award. The direct disability discrimination claim and the newly added direct sex discrimination claim were allowed to proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal struck out the constructive unfair dismissal claim because it was presented out of time and not within a reasonable time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds for the direct disability discrimination claim to proceed to a final hearing; liability was not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend to add direct sex discrimination; liability was not determined. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- just and equitable extension of time
- reasonable practicability
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Morgan
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.