Miss L Boyce v Ministry of Defence: 1402698/2021

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1402698/2021
Miss L BoyceClaimantMinistry of DefenceRespondent
Employment Judge GrayIn person for claimantMrs Hornblower (instructed by Counsel) for respondentMs S Hornblower (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 16 October 2023

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the tribunal is that:  It is just and equitable to extend time in respect of the discrimination complaints (Equality Act 2010) relating to the reply to the Claimant’s asserted grievance (16 April 2021), understanding that the Claimant asserts that is the last in a series of acts of behaviour. The matter of whether it is conduct extending over a period is still to be determined.  The Claimant’s complaint of constructive unfair dismissal (Employment Rights Act 1996) is out of time so that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider it, and it is therefore dismissed. ____________________ Employment Judge Gray Date: 9 November 2022 Judgment sent to Parties on 23 November 2022 by Miss J Hopes FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Note Case Number: 1402698/2021 2 of 2 Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing, or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Case No: 1402698/2021 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss L Boyce Respondent: Ministry of Defence Heard at: Southampton Employment Tribunal via CVP On: 9th – 13th October 2023 Before: Employment Judge Lang sitting with Tribunal Members Mr N Knight and Mr J Evans Representation Claimant: In Person Respondent: Ms S Hornblower (Counsel) JUDGMENT[1]The complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability is not well-founded and is dismissed.[2]The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability is not well- founded and is dismissed.[3]The complaint of victimisation is not well-founded and is dismissed.[4]The Claimant’s application to amend the claim to include direct discrimination is refused.