[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-281188-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-281188-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","reserved-judgment-on-a-preliminary-hearing-employment-tribunals-case-22018042021","Reserved Judgment on a Preliminary Hearing - Employment Tribunals Case 2201804/2021","","Reserved judgment of the Employment Tribunal in case 2201804/2021 concerning a claimant, Miss A Harvey, and respondent NACRO. The tribunal considered whether the claimant materially complied with an Unless Order dated 27 April 2022, and the effect of non-compliance on disability discrimination, victimisation, and related harassment claims. Relief from sanctions was granted only to the extent the claimant relied on admitted ADHD. An amendment application adding constructive dismissal/resignation discrimination was refused, with a separate case management order to follow.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/reserved-judgment-on-a-preliminary-hearing-employment-tribunals-case-22018042021/281188/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/reserved-judgment-on-a-preliminary-hearing-employment-tribunals-case-22018042021/281188.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Seraphina","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-26","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What was the key issue at the preliminary hearing in case 2201804/2021?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Whether the claimant materially complied with the Unless Order dated 27 April 2022, and if not, whether relief from the resulting sanction should be granted.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What did the tribunal decide regarding the claimant’s dismissed disability discrimination and victimisation claims?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The claims were dismissed for non-compliance, but the dismissal was set aside only to the extent the claimant could rely on the admitted disability of ADHD in any disability related claim.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Did the tribunal allow the claimant to amend her claim to add constructive dismissal/resignation discrimination?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"No. The claimant’s application to amend her claim to add discrimination based on resignation/constructive dismissal was refused.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},281188,1789564790,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,114,118,123],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":110,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":115,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":126},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":128},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":129,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":22,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":105,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":140},962075114101,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/e000253a75eb197efd?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1780044092746381165","Case No. 2201804/2021  \nEMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS  \nClaimant: Miss A Harvey  \nRespondent: NACRO  \nHeard at: London Central (via CVP) On: 2nd August 2022  \nBefore: Employment Judge Nicklin (sitting alone)  \nRepresentation  \nClaimant: in person  \nRespondent: Mr Shephard, Counsel  \nNote: This has been a remote hearing. The parties did not object to the case being heard remotely. The form of remote hearing was by video, conducted using Cloud Video Platform (CVP) . It was not practicable to hold a face-to-face hearing because of the COVID-19 pandemic.  \nRESERVED JUDGMENT ON A PRELIMINARY HEARING  \nIt is the judgment of the tribunal that:  \n1. Subject to paragraph 2 below, the Claimant has not materially complied with the Unless Order dated 27th April 2022 (sent to the parties on 28th April 2022) (“the Unless Order”) and, accordingly, all of her claims of disability discrimination (including her claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments and disability related harassment) and victimisation stand dismissed in accordance with the Unless Order.  \n2. The Claimant is granted relief from sanctions in respect of all claims dismissed under the Unless Order only to the extent that she may rely on the admitted disability of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) in any disability related claim. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes the claim of victimisation. Accordingly, the dismissal of her claims specified in the Unless Order is set aside to that extent. The Claimant’s application for relief from sanctions to pursue any disability related claim on the basis of any other alleged disability is refused.  \nCase No. 2201804/2021  \n3. The Claimant’s application to amend her claim to add a claim of discrimination based on her resignation/constructive dismissal is refused.  \n4. A separate case management order providing for the progression of the case to final hearing will be sent to the parties with a copy of this judgment.  \nREASONS  \nIntroduction  \n1. This is the reserved judgment of the tribunal following an open preliminary hearing which took place on 2 nd August 2022. The issues to be determined (and on which submissions were made at the hearing) are:  \n1.1. Whether the Claimant has complied with the terms of the Unless Order sent to the parties on 28th April 2022 (“the Unless Order”) . If she has not, her discrimination and victimisation claims stand dismissed as a result of that order.  \n1.2. If those claims are dismissed, whether the tribunal should grant relief against that sanction to the Claimant. This means that, if relief is granted, the Claimant’s claims would be reinstated.  \n1.3. To determine the Claimant’s application for permission to amend her claim to add a new claim of constructive unfair dismissal and/or a new allegation of discrimination in relation to alleged constructive unfair dismissal.  \n1.4. Subject to the determinations made on the first three issues, any case management required to further prepare the case for final hearing (it is not in dispute that there is a protected disclosure claim which proceeds to final hearing in any event) . Following this judgment, I have made a separate case management order which will be sent to the parties.  \n2. The hearing was listed for 3 hours, originally on the basis that it would hear submissions on the Unless Order. However, in the circumstances, to allow time for both parties to make representations in relation to the Unless Order and the amendment application, it was agreed that the decision on all matters would be reserved.  \nProcedural history  \n3. By a claim form presented on 21st April 2021, the Claimant brought claims of disability discrimination , victimisation and protected disclosure detriment. She has been assisted by solicitors for most of the time since that point up to the case management hearing on 13th January 2022. Prior to that hearing, the Claimant had served further and better particulars and the Respondent had replied with an Amended Response.","cbCaijUUzvKqooRD","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaijUUzvKqooRD","pdf",237758,"English","# Reserved Judgment on a Preliminary Hearing\n## Procedural history\n## Introduction and issues for determination","[{\"question\":\"What was the key issue at the preliminary hearing in case 2201804/2021?\",\"answer\":\"Whether the claimant materially complied with the Unless Order dated 27 April 2022, and if not, whether relief from the resulting sanction should be granted.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the tribunal decide regarding the claimant’s dismissed disability discrimination and victimisation claims?\",\"answer\":\"The claims were dismissed for non-compliance, but the dismissal was set aside only to the extent the claimant could rely on the admitted disability of ADHD in any disability related claim.\"},{\"question\":\"Did the tribunal allow the claimant to amend her claim to add constructive dismissal/resignation discrimination?\",\"answer\":\"No. The claimant’s application to amend her claim to add discrimination based on resignation/constructive dismissal was refused.\"}]","Reserved Judgment on a Preliminary Hearing - Employment Tribunals Case 2201804/2021 | PDF",6]