Case 6004906/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ross May v LGC Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004906/2024
- Decision date
- 18 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Neill REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ross May
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant brought claims for discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination, and victimisation on the basis of disability.
The tribunal found that those claims were not presented within the applicable time limit. It also found that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit, so the claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation on the basis of disability was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.