Case 3318930/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L S Bryant v Scimitar Care Hotels plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 3318930/2019
- Decision date
- 30 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L S Bryant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 30 October 2019, Employment Judge M Warren determined preliminary issues in Mrs L S Bryant’s claims against Scimitar Care Hotels Plc. The claimant’s unpaid wages claim was found to be out of time. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practical for that claim to have been brought in time, and it was therefore dismissed for having been made out of time.
The tribunal also dealt with the claimant’s disability discrimination claim. It held that it was just and equitable to extend time in respect of that claim, so the discrimination claim was treated as being in time. The extracted judgment states that the reasons were set out in a Hearing Summary of the same date, but no merits finding or remedy decision is recorded in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim was issued out of time and that it was reasonably practical for it to have been issued in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis and held the claim to be in time. The extracted judgment does not record any merits decision on the discrimination claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practical
- just and equitable
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.