Waterstones Booksellers Ltd

Case Summary

Preliminary hearing to determine whether the claimant's complaints of harassment related to disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and whistleblowing detriment were brought in time, and if not, whether time should be extended.

The tribunal exercised its discretion to extend time limits under the just and equitable test for the disability-related harassment and reasonable adjustments complaints, allowing those claims to proceed, but refused to extend time for the whistleblowing detriment claim as it was presented out of time.

• •whether claims brought in time
• •whether time should be extended

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Scott Walker Respondent: Waterstones Booksellers Limited Heard at: Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal On: 1 December 2025 Before: Employment Judge Freshwater Appearances For the claimant: in person For the respondent: Miss J Duane (counsel) RESERVED JUDGMENT 1. The tribunal does have jurisdiction to determine the complaint of harassment related to disability under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 because it is just and equitable to extend the time limits. 2. The tribunal does have jurisdiction to determine the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under section 21 of the Equality Act 2010 because it is just and equitable to extend the time limits. 3. The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the complaint of whistleblowing detriment under section 48(1A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because it was not presented in time. REASONS Background 1. The claimant is Mr Scott Walker. The respondent is Waterstones Bookseller Limited. Procedure and hearing 2. This was a public preliminary hearing that took place in person at Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal. The reasonable adjustments that had been agreed in the case were discussed at the beginning of the hearing. These included the need for in person hearings and to receive documents in writing by hard copy (not just email). Mr Walker informed me that he was receiving hard copy documents from the respondent but not the tribunal office. I said that I would contact the tribunal office about this point. 3. Mr Walker had not received the bundle of documents for the hearing until 28 November 2025 by signed delivery. The respondent had also sent a hard copy on 18 November, but Mr Walker did not receive it. He was concerned that he was at a disadvantage, but did not want the…