Case 8000737/2025 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000737/2025 Held in Edinburgh by CVP on and September 2025 Employment Judge J M Hendry Miss M Shields v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000737/2025
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000737/2025 Held in Edinburgh by CVP on and September 2025 Employment Judge J M Hendry Miss M Shields
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's original complaint concerned alleged disability discrimination arising from her exclusion, as a contractual homeworker, from applying for a promoted post and from the respondent's alleged failure to adjust the relevant policy. Disability status was accepted by the respondent by the second preliminary hearing. The Tribunal also made a restricted reporting order in relation to the claimant's medical history and health conditions, but did not grant anonymity.
On time limits, the Tribunal considered the claimant's lack of knowledge of Employment Tribunal time limits, her reliance on trade union representatives, delays in the internal grievance and appeal process, and her health and personal circumstances. It found the claimant credible and reliable and concluded, looking at all the circumstances, that it was just and equitable to extend time for the disability discrimination claims in the ET1.
On amendment, the Tribunal allowed the claimant to add disability discrimination claims under sections 13, 15, 19 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010, finding that they arose from the same essential background concerning the recruitment process and the claimant's treatment. It refused amendment to add a victimisation claim under section 27 because those matters were not referenced in the ET1 or grievance appeal and would require investigation of substantially new matters. It also refused any stand-alone ACAS Code breach claim, allowing those matters only as potentially relevant background.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal allowed the disability discrimination claims contained in the ET1 to proceed although late, and allowed amendment to add claims under sections 13, 15, 19 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010. This was a preliminary judgment on time limits and amendment, not a final merits determination. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The Tribunal refused permission to amend to add claims under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. This was refusal of amendment, not a final merits determination of an existing victimisation claim. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The Tribunal refused permission to add claims for breaches of the ACAS Code, noting that no stand-alone claim exists for breach of that part of the Code; the matters were allowed only as potentially relevant background to the disability discrimination claims. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
19 references- section 49(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 50
- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
- Kuznetsov v Royal Bank of Scotland
- Chaudhry v Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Ltd
- MacFarlane v Commissioner of Police of Metropolis
- Amey Services Ltd and another v Alridge and Others
- Rawson v Doncaster NHS Primary Care Trust
- Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Barclay's Bank v Kapur
- Rovenska v GMC
- Trimble v North Lanarkshire Council
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.