Case 4105215/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Black v Takepayments Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4105215/2023
- Decision date
- 2 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Venue
- Glasgow remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Black
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 5 December 2023, Employment Judge A Kemp considered a disability discrimination claim brought by Ms E Black against Takepayments Ltd under sections 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010. The respondent did not concede disability. The tribunal noted that at an earlier preliminary hearing the claimant had accepted that her claim form lacked specification, and the tribunal had made orders requiring particulars and documents to be provided before the hearing.
The claimant then sought to add the appeal hearing and appeal decision as part of the alleged discriminatory conduct. The tribunal treated that as an application to amend and refused it. Applying the Selkent line of authority and related cases, it held that the proposed amendment was vague, materially different from the pleaded claim, and well out of time. It also found no proper basis to treat the appeal as conduct extending over a period for section 123 purposes.
On limitation, the tribunal held that the dismissal took place on 29 March 2023, so early conciliation should have been started by 28 June 2023. It was not started until 26 July 2023, and the claim was presented on 28 August 2023. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had significant stressors and was likely a disabled person by reason of her physical impairments, but it found no sufficient explanation for the delay, noted inconsistencies in her evidence about advice from ACAS, Citizens Advice and her union, and found no medical evidence showing that she had been unable to act. It also held that the pleadings and evidence did not identify any PCP, harassment, or protected act with enough clarity to assess the merits, so it refused a just and equitable extension and dismissed the claims for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed because the tribunal refused a just and equitable extension of time under section 123 and did not reach the merits. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed because the claim was out of time and the tribunal declined to extend time under section 123. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect discrimination claim under section 19 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after the tribunal refused a just and equitable extension of time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed because the claim was time-barred and the tribunal found no basis to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after the tribunal declined to extend time under section 123. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed because the tribunal refused a just and equitable extension and could not identify a properly specified factual basis for the complaint. |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Selkent Bus Company v Moore
- Ali v Office for National Statistics
- Housing Corporation v Bryant
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 just and equitable extension
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd
- Barclays Bank plc v Kapur
- Lupetti v Wrens Old House Ltd
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
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.