Case 6007249/2024 · Employment Tribunal
“AB” v OVO Energy Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007249/2024
- Decision date
- 14 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
“AB”
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAB brought complaints against OVO Energy Ltd of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 and failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the same Act. The tribunal did not determine the substantive merits of either complaint.
The tribunal held that both complaints were presented outside the time limit in section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. It further found that it was not just and equitable to extend time. Both complaints were therefore dismissed on limitation grounds.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010; dismissed because it was not presented within the section 123(1)(a) time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010; dismissed because it was not presented within the section 123(1)(a) time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
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.