Case 8000212/2024 · Employment Tribunal
15 Representing herself 1st Class Care Limited v 20 Represented by Miss Doci (Solicitor) 25 — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000212/2024
- Decision date
- 27 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Buzzard
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
15 Representing herself 1st Class Care Limited
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that alleged discriminatory acts before February 2024 formed part of a course of conduct ending after 22 February 2024. It also held that there was no reasonable prospect of showing that it was just and equitable to extend time for complaints about those acts. Those complaints were therefore struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a).
The written record says that the only allegation still proceeding is one said to concern an alleged delay in making a reasonable adjustment, namely granting the claimant exclusive use of his permanent desk so that no other staff could use it when he was not in work for any reason. The judgment does not determine that remaining allegation on the merits and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written extract strikes out the complaints of discrimination in relation to acts before February 2024 under Rule 38(1)(a). It does not identify the protected characteristic expressly. The only allegation said to remain live is a delay in making a reasonable adjustment concerning exclusive use of the claimant's permanent desk. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- no reasonable prospect of establishing
- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.