Case 6003640/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Kauser v Uandicare — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003640/2024
- Decision date
- 1 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Kauser
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Kauser brought a complaint of detriment because of a protected disclosure against Uandicare, together with complaints of direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The case was heard by CVP at Liverpool on 1 August 2025 before Employment Judge Ainscough. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in time.
The tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for the protected disclosure complaint to be presented within the prescribed time limit in section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that the claimant did not present that complaint within a reasonable time thereafter, so the whistleblowing detriment complaint was out of time and dismissed.
For the Equality Act 2010 complaints, the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123. The direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation complaints were therefore outside the prescribed time limit and were dismissed. No substantive findings on liability or remedy were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment because of a protected disclosure. The tribunal held it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996 time limit, and that it was not presented within a reasonable time thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint of direct discrimination. The extracted text does not identify the protected characteristic. The tribunal held the complaint was presented outside the prescribed time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment. The extracted text does not identify the protected characteristic. The tribunal held the complaint was presented outside the prescribed time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Complaint of victimisation. The extracted text does not identify the protected characteristic. The tribunal held the complaint was presented outside the prescribed time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
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.