Case 3315294/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Cato-Modeste v Property Debt Collection Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3315294/2023
- Decision date
- 12 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Cato-Modeste
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 3 February and 15 May 2025, Employment Judge Emery found that the claim had not been presented within the applicable time limit, but that it was just and equitable to extend time so the case could proceed.
The Tribunal also found that the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of bilateral foot pain. On that basis, the complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments could proceed to a final hearing.
The judgment is a preliminary decision only. It does not determine the merits of the discrimination complaints and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis. It found that the claimant was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of bilateral foot pain, so the complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments could proceed. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable time limit extension
- section 6 Equality Act 2010
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.