Case 6000310/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Proctor v HSBC UK Bank plc Heard: in public via Cloud Video Platform — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000310/2023
- Decision date
- 7 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Proctor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Ayre sitting alone on 7 February 2024. The claimant, Ms E Proctor, appeared in person and HSBC UK Bank Plc was represented by counsel. The tribunal considered only whether the disability-related harassment claim and the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim were in time.
The tribunal held that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing that those claims were in time. It also found that it would not be just and equitable to extend time in relation to either claim. As a result, both claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal held that the disability-related harassment claim was not in time, that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, and that the claim was therefore struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | This entry covers the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim, which the tribunal found was not in time, refused to extend time for, and struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- just and equitable to extend time
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.