Case 6001186/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Emma Edmondson v The Beckfoot Trust AT A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001186/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Emma Edmondson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Lancaster in Leeds on 15 January 2024. The claimant was Ms Emma Edmondson and the respondent was The Beckfoot Trust. No lay members are listed, so the hearing appears to have been judge-alone.
The tribunal recorded that the claims were disability discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010. It found that they had all been presented out of time. The only live issue identified in the judgment was whether it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The claims were therefore dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At a public preliminary hearing on 15 January 2024, the tribunal held that the disability discrimination claims, however legally categorised under the Equality Act 2010, were all presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b). | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- 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.