Case 4110386/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Miss A v (Anonymity order in place) Represented by: Ms M Barbour (Advocate)15 Sky Subscriber Services Limited — 2021

Case reference: 4110386/2019
Decision date: 13 July 2021
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge M Whitcombe

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss A

Respondent

(Anonymity order in place) Represented by: Ms M Barbour (Advocate)15 Sky Subscriber Services Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing by video on 29 and 30 June 2021, Employment Judge M Whitcombe considered limitation and jurisdiction issues in Miss A's claims against Sky Subscriber Services Limited. The unfair (constructive) dismissal claim was brought outside the time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented that complaint within time, so the claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Equality Act 2010 claims of direct sex discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were also presented outside the primary limitation period in section 123(1)(a), but the Tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b), so it had jurisdiction to hear those claims. The Tribunal also found that Miss A had a disability, described in the judgment as menorrhagia, within section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment records oral reasons on 30 June 2021 and does not determine the merits of the Equality Act claims or any remedy.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	The unfair (constructive) dismissal claim was presented out of time under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented it within time, so the claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.	Dismissed	—	—
Sex discrimination	The direct sex discrimination claim was presented outside the primary time limit in section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, but the Tribunal held it was within the just and equitable extension in section 123(1)(b), so the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it. Merits were not determined.	Other	Sex	—
Disability discrimination	The discrimination arising from disability claim was presented outside the primary time limit in section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, but the Tribunal held it was within the just and equitable extension in section 123(1)(b), so the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it. Merits were not determined.	Other	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The failure to make reasonable adjustments claim was presented outside the primary time limit in section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, but the Tribunal held it was within the just and equitable extension in section 123(1)(b), so the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it. Merits were not determined.	Other	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

7 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.