Case 8000008/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Dickson v Department for Work and Pensions — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000008/2023
- Decision date
- 14 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Dickson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's employment ended on 15 September 2020 and she presented her claim on 4 January 2023. The tribunal considered the respondent's strike-out application. It declined to strike out the claim under Rule 37(1)(c) for non-compliance with tribunal orders, finding that strike out would not be proportionate in light of the information already provided and the claimant's oral explanation.
The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a). The tribunal found that, even taking the claimant's case at its highest, there was no prospect of a tribunal finding that the claim had been lodged within such further period as was reasonable after the ordinary time limit expired. The tribunal noted the claimant knew of the time limit, had trade union assistance, later engaged a solicitor, and did not lodge the claim until January 2023.
The tribunal refused to strike out the failure to make reasonable adjustments complaints or order a deposit. It had considerable doubt about whether the claimant could establish a continuing course of conduct, but held that it could not be said there was no or little reasonable prospect of a tribunal extending time on a just and equitable basis if the allegations were established.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success on limitation/jurisdiction grounds. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint was failure to make reasonable adjustments. The respondent's applications to strike it out or, alternatively, for a deposit order were refused; the merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- s111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Rule 37 strike out proportionality
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James
- Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- s123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- DCA v Jones
- Miller v The Ministry of Justice
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.