Cases6000014/2024

Claimant v Spamedica Ltd

1 April 2025Before Employment Judge MaidmentLeedsremote video

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)not determined

The tribunal considered it just and equitable to extend the time limit, allowing this claim to proceed to a full hearing on the merits.

Direct Discrimination(disability)struck out

Complaint submitted outside applicable time limits and the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. Struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Direct Discrimination(disability)struck out

Discrimination arising from disability complaint submitted outside applicable time limits. Tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. Struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Harassment(disability)struck out

Disability-related harassment complaint submitted outside applicable time limits and tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. Struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Facts

Mrs Rhodes brought multiple disability discrimination claims against Spamedica Ltd. The claims were submitted outside the statutory time limits. This was a preliminary hearing to determine whether the tribunal should exercise its discretion to extend time on a just and equitable basis.

Decision

The tribunal allowed the reasonable adjustments claim to proceed by extending time on just and equitable grounds. However, the tribunal struck out the direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and disability-related harassment claims, finding it was not just and equitable to extend time for those complaints.

Practical note

Tribunals will exercise discretion differently for different claims even within the same case when considering just and equitable extensions of time limits in disability discrimination cases.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Equality Act 2010

Case details

Case number
6000014/2024
Decision date
1 April 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No