Case 6000473/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Kitson v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000473/2024
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Kitson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that all of the claimant's complaints were presented out of time and dismissed them on that basis. The claimant's employment ended on 14 April 2023, she commenced early conciliation on 22 January 2024, and she presented her claim on 14 February 2024.
The claimant said the delay arose from her ADHD, domestic abuse and personal circumstances, and work-related stress and mental health. The tribunal accepted that disability was not in dispute, noted the serious conduct by the claimant's former spouse, and considered the claimant's evidence that work-related stress continued until the grievance process ended on 23 October 2023. The judge also noted that the claimant was unable to provide medical evidence showing she was unable to submit her claim in time.
The tribunal found that, at the latest, the claimant could and should have presented her claim from 23 October 2023 onwards but did not do so until 14 February 2024. It also noted that many complaints in the further and better particulars were older still. The claimant discussed adding dates to reduce the extent to which matters were out of time, but the tribunal explained that any such amendment would require evidential justification and permission. The tribunal concluded that all claims were out of time in all the circumstances and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing/category hint because the judgment text provided does not separately enumerate the pleaded claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing/category hint because the judgment text provided does not separately enumerate the pleaded claims. The judgment refers to the claimant's ADHD as an undisputed disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing/category hint because the judgment text provided does not separately enumerate the pleaded claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing/category hint because the judgment text provided does not separately enumerate the pleaded claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.