Case 3314213/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Scott Walker v Waterstones Booksellers Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3314213/2023
- Decision date
- 1 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freshwater Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Scott Walker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether the claimant's complaints had been brought in time and, if not, whether time should be extended. The respondent conceded that unfair dismissal and arrears of pay claims were within time, but disputed jurisdiction for Equality Act and whistleblowing complaints arising from earlier events.
The tribunal found that the alleged harassment related to disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments incidents were out of time, with the most recent incident before 23 July 2023. It nevertheless found it just and equitable to extend time, taking into account the claimant's attempt to resolve matters internally, the timing of the grievance outcome, the effect of his disabilities, and the limited prejudice to the respondent.
For the whistleblowing detriment complaint, the tribunal found that the alleged protected disclosures and detriments were too late and that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within time or much sooner than he did. It therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the whistleblowing claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal decided it had jurisdiction to determine the harassment related to disability complaint because it was just and equitable to extend time; the merits were not determined in this preliminary judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal decided it had jurisdiction to determine the failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint because it was just and equitable to extend time; the merits were not determined in this preliminary judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to determine the whistleblowing detriment complaint under section 48(1A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because it was not presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 48(1A) Employment Rights Act 1996
- just and equitable to extend time
- reasonably practicable
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.