Case 4107169/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Smith v Represented by Mr A Matthew Solicitor Independent Vetcare Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4107169/2019
- Decision date
- 20 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on time limits and jurisdiction for Miss Smith's Equality Act claims against Independent Vetcare Ltd. The respondent accepted that Miss Smith was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The claims pleaded were direct discrimination under section 13, discrimination arising from disability under section 15, failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21, and harassment under section 26. Miss Smith said that comments made by her manager while she was off sick between March and May 2018, pressure to do extra hours on her return in June and July 2018, and further disability-related comments between May and August 2018 formed part of the same course of conduct as the later suspension and disciplinary process.
The tribunal accepted Miss Smith's oral evidence as clear, candid, credible and reliable. It found sufficient linkage between the earlier complaints and the later disciplinary steps to constitute conduct extending over a period for the purposes of section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal relied on the proximity between her complaint email of 25 July 2018, her meeting with Ms Busby on or around 2 August 2018, her suspension on 9 August 2018, the grievance process that followed, and the eventual outcome on 29 July 2019 that no action would be taken against her. On that basis, it held that the claims were within the tribunal's jurisdiction.
In the alternative, the tribunal held that if the earlier allegations were out of time it would be just and equitable to permit them to proceed. It took into account the length of the delay, the fact that Miss Smith had tried to resolve matters internally and then commenced ACAS Early Conciliation promptly after her appeal was rejected, the length of the grievance and disciplinary process while she remained suspended, and the degree of prejudice to each side. The tribunal therefore ordered that the claims should proceed to a final hearing. No liability findings or remedy were decided at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010. At the preliminary hearing the tribunal held it was within jurisdiction and could proceed to a final hearing; merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the time limit point did not prevent the claim proceeding, either because the events formed conduct extending over a period or, alternatively, because it was just and equitable to extend time. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal allowed it to proceed and did not decide liability at this stage. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held it was within jurisdiction and left the merits for the final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- conduct extending over a period
- just and equitable extension
- Barclays Bank plc v Kapur
- Hendricks v Commissioner for Police for the Metropolis
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Averns v Stagecoach in Warwickshire
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
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.