Case 6023558/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Angel v ABM Aviation UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6023558/2024
- Decision date
- 4 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Angel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a). It found that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the applicable time period, or that it was presented within a further reasonable period.
The tribunal did not strike out the disability discrimination complaints under the Equality Act. It found that the claimant had more than no reasonable prospect of establishing either that the alleged discriminatory acts formed part of a course of conduct ending after July 2024, or that it would be just and equitable to extend time for complaints relating to those acts.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success on limitation; the judgment states the claim is therefore dismissed. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment only decided that the disability discrimination complaints were not struck out; it did not determine the final merits or remedy. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- reasonably practicable
- 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.