Case 6007562/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Potter v London & Quadrant Housing Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007562/2024
- Decision date
- 1 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Millns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Potter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records claims by Mr M Potter against London and Quadrant Housing Trust for direct disability discrimination, direct race discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Employment Judge Millns held that those claims were presented outside the period specified in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010. The tribunal also held that it was not just and equitable to extend that time limit. The claims were therefore dismissed.
The written judgment records no monetary award or remedy. It states that reasons had been given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed as presented outside the section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 time limit; the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim dismissed as presented outside the section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 time limit; the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim dismissed as presented outside the section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 time limit; the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of 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.