Cases1600873/2022

Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice

19 February 2025Before Employment Judge T. Vincent RyanWales (Wrexham)on papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(disability)failed

The claim was dismissed in full following a final merits hearing. The tribunal found against the claimant on all disability discrimination claims including direct discrimination.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)failed

The claim was dismissed in full following a final merits hearing. The tribunal found against the claimant on discrimination arising from disability.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

The claim was dismissed in full following a final merits hearing. The tribunal found the respondent had not failed to make reasonable adjustments.

Victimisationfailed

The victimisation claim was dismissed in full following the final merits hearing. The tribunal did not find that the claimant had been subjected to victimisation.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The unauthorised deduction from wages claim was dismissed in full following the final merits hearing.

Facts

The claimant brought multiple claims including disability discrimination (direct, arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments), victimisation, and unauthorised deduction from wages against her employer, the Secretary of State for Justice. The claims related to her employment at Wrexham and later at Newtown following redeployment. The case involved complex and voluminous documentation (672 pages), multiple preliminary hearings, and a full merits hearing split across May and October 2024.

Decision

All of the claimant's claims were dismissed following a full merits hearing concluded in October 2024. The claimant subsequently applied for a preparation time order alleging unreasonable conduct by the respondent, but this was refused. The judge found no evidence that the respondent acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or unreasonably, concluding that both parties worked hard on complex litigation and there was a fair hearing.

Practical note

A preparation time order will not be granted merely because litigation was complex and required substantial effort; there must be unreasonable conduct meeting the high threshold in the tribunal rules, and genuine misunderstandings in case preparation do not meet that bar.

Case details

Case number
1600873/2022
Decision date
19 February 2025
Hearing type
costs
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
central government
Represented
No
Rep type
self

Claimant representation

Represented
No