Case 3322503/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3322503/2019
- Decision date
- 11 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent conceded that, at all material times, the claimant was a disabled person suffering from Bi-polar Affective Disorder. The case therefore included disability discrimination allegations within the scope of the tribunal's jurisdictional ruling, but no merits findings were made on those allegations.
The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her unauthorised deductions from wages and wrongful dismissal claims within the primary limitation period of three months. Those claims were therefore struck out because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine them.
For the disability discrimination claims, the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time. Those claims were also struck out for want of jurisdiction. The final hearing listed for 5 and 6 August 2021 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the unlawful deductions from wages claim within the primary limitation period of 3 months, so it was struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the wrongful dismissal claim within the primary limitation period of 3 months, so it was struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The respondent conceded that the claimant was a disabled person suffering from Bi-polar Affective Disorder, but the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time for the disability discrimination claims, so they were struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.