Case 6001054/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Price v Generator Power Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001054/2025
- Decision date
- 5 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Price
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary judgment on limitation rather than a merits decision. The tribunal held that the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages had been presented within the applicable time limit, so that complaint would proceed.
The disability discrimination complaints were out of time, but Employment Judge Miller decided that it was just and equitable to extend the time limit in respect of the allegations relating to the claimant's dismissal. Those disability discrimination complaints would therefore also proceed.
The tribunal noted that it remained a matter for the final hearing whether any allegations of discrimination before dismissal formed part of conduct extending over a period ending with the dismissal. No substantive findings on liability or remedy were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint was presented within the applicable time limit and said it would therefore proceed. No merits decision was made in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaints of disability discrimination were not presented within the applicable time limit, but the tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time in respect of the allegations relating to the claimant's dismissal. The tribunal left open whether any earlier allegations formed part of conduct extending over a period ending with the dismissal. | Other | Disability | — |
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.