Case 3334305/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Z, Husband. For the v Respondent — 2018

Case reference: 3334305/2018
Decision date: 18 January 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Laidler Members
Venue: Bury St Edmunds
Panel members: Mrs L Daniels, Mr B Smith

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr Z, Husband. For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant brought complaints of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The tribunal held that the disability discrimination complaints were presented outside the statutory time period in section 123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

The tribunal stated that, if the disability claims had been in time, all would have been dismissed except the complaint that the claimant was treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of disability when W said on 31 January 2018 that she could not return to her role, and the complaint that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by requiring the team to be co-located at a specific desk location.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal found no dismissal in law because the claimant did not resign in response to a breach and continued to work for the respondent. It also stated that, if wrong on that point, the claimant had waived any breach by applying for another job with the respondent and continuing to work for it. All claims therefore failed and were dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant was not dismissed contrary to section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 and that the constructive dismissal claim failed.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction because the disability discrimination complaints were submitted outside the statutory time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. It stated that, if the claims had been in time, all disability discrimination claims would have been dismissed except one section 15 Equality Act 2010 complaint and one reasonable adjustments complaint.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.