Case 6012045/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Adam Hayward v Leeds Trinity University Heard: in public by CVP — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012045/2024
- Decision date
- 20 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Adam Hayward
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a disability discrimination claim after his employment ended on 17 January 2024. The Tribunal found that the primary time limit, extended by ACAS early conciliation, expired on 24 June 2024, but the claim was not presented until 18 September 2024.
The Tribunal did not accept the claimant's explanation that he received the ACAS certificate late, finding that it was issued on 24 May 2024 and that he had likely forgotten or misplaced it. It also found that the claimant's ADHD assessment, divorce and child care proceedings did not make it just and equitable to extend time, and that the respondent would be prejudiced by the delay.
The Tribunal refused to extend time. It held that the claim was out of time and that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim was presented out of time. The Tribunal refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis and held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link [2003] IRLR 434
- Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EWCA Civ 1568
- Rodgers v Bodfari (Transport) Ltd 1973 325 NIRC
- Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton EA-2020-000972-OO
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.