Case 4102860/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Gillian Sinclair v Sensee Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102860/2022
- Decision date
- 17 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Gillian Sinclair
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Sinclair brought a disability discrimination complaint after her employment with Sensee Limited ended on 21 November 2021. Earlier heads of complaint alleging breach of section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and GDPR were withdrawn and formally dismissed. The preliminary hearing on 23 January 2023 was listed to determine time bar, strike out, and a possible deposit order.
The Tribunal found that the ET1 presented on 19 May 2022 was out of time. Applying section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, it held that the relevant acts were in October and November 2021, that ACAS early conciliation did not begin until 1 April 2022, and that the three-month time limit had expired by 20 February 2022 at the latest. The Tribunal accepted that the claimant had been following the grievance process, but held that she knew the relevant facts, was aware of the three-month time limit, and gave no adequate explanation for the further delay between 22 April and 19 May 2022.
On the just and equitable question, the Tribunal weighed the length of the delay, the grievance and appeal process, and prejudice. It accepted that the grievance appeal outcome was not issued until 15 March 2022 and that there was no substantial basis to find actual forensic prejudice to the respondents, but it concluded that the overall balance still made it unjust and inequitable to extend time. In the alternative, and in any event, the Tribunal granted strike out under Rule 37(1)(a) because the claim had no reasonable prospects of success, including because the claimant had not materially complied with earlier orders to particularise the allegations or provide medical evidence and the legal basis of the disability complaint remained unspecified. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the claim in its entirety and said a deposit order was unnecessary, although it added that if the case had gone on it would have ordered £100 per allegation.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Alleged breach of section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974; withdrawn by the claimant and formally dismissed under Rules 51 and 52. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Alleged breach of GDPR/data protection provisions; withdrawn by the claimant and formally dismissed under Rules 51 and 52. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed as presented out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and, in any event, struck out under Rule 37(1)(a); the respondent disputed that the claimant was disabled, and no deposit order was made. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010 just and equitable test
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble factors
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 39 deposit order / little reasonable prospect of success
- Cox v Adecco guidance on litigants in person
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.