Case 8000076/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Savage v Represented by: Mr J Lawson - Solicitor NHS — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000076/2025
- Decision date
- 17 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Savage
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on whether the claimant's Equality Act claim was out of time. The claim concerned a recruitment process for a Psychological Wellbeing Officer role. The parties agreed that the last complained-of event was the withdrawal of a conditional offer on 18 December 2023. The claimant did not begin ACAS Early Conciliation until 12 December 2024 and presented the claim on 10 January 2025, so the tribunal found the claim was plainly outside the three-month time limit and could proceed only if it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b) EqA 2010.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had disability-related grievances and that she had a potentially competent claim on its merits. It also accepted that she did not know she could bring a tribunal claim as a job applicant, that she acted promptly once a colleague suggested she might have a claim, and that there was no apparent degradation of the evidence from delay. However, the tribunal found that she had a degree of awareness of disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments at the time of the withdrawal, had discussed the matter with family, had done some online research in late December 2023 or January 2024, and then consciously chose not to investigate further because she feared pursuing a claim could harm future NHS employment prospects.
On the medical evidence, the tribunal found that the claimant was not shown to have been medically prevented from pursuing the claim in December 2023 or at least the first half of January 2024. It found that her more significant physical and mental health difficulties arose later, and that by late summer 2024 her symptoms had improved enough that she could have returned to the issue if she had wanted to do so. Balancing the British Coal v Keeble / DPP v Marshall factors and the parties' submissions, the tribunal concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The result was that the claim remained out of time and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing on time bar. The tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b) EqA 2010, so it lacked jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination complaint. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | This covered the indirect discrimination complaint pleaded under section 19 EqA 2010. It was dismissed because the whole claim was out of time and time was not extended. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | This covered the reasonable adjustments complaint pleaded under sections 20 and 21 EqA 2010. It was dismissed because the tribunal refused to extend time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 123(1)(b) EqA 2010 just and equitable extension
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- DPP v Marshall
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
- Perth & Kinross Council v Townsley
- Mensah v Royal College of Midwives
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.