RESEARCH / VERSION 1.1 / 16 OCTOBER 2026
Treatment and the practical ability to bring a claim in time
The tribunal considered whether claims could proceed despite a delay. On the evidence of the claimant’s condition, treatment and help with submitting the claim, it held that timely presentation of the unfair-dismissal and wage claims had not been reasonably practicable and that the eight-day delay was reasonable. It treated the disability-discrimination claims as in time.
| Field | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Reference period | 2021-05-26 |
| Coverage | England and Wales |
| Status | Preliminary hearing; time limits |
| Source-check date | 2026-10-14 |
| Case reference | A Freeman v Sainsbury Supermarkets Ltd, 2307164/2020 |
| Court / tribunal | Employment Tribunal (London South) |
| Issue | Access to justice; addiction treatment; time limits |
| Actual disposition | Tribunal accepted jurisdiction to hear the claims. This decision did not decide whether the employer had discriminated or dismissed unfairly. |
| Appeal / later history checked | Later merits decision and any appeal have not been verified. |
| Authority level | Employment Tribunal — first instance |
| Addiction / medication scope | Treatment and ability to bring a claim; not a decision that addiction is a protected disability. |
| Targeted history check | Targeted official-domain case-number search did not verify a later merits judgment. Existing public caption A Freeman is preserved despite the PDF filename using R. |
| Procedural determination | On the evidence, timely presentation of the unfair-dismissal and wage claims was not reasonably practicable; the further eight-day period was reasonable. [Source: Paragraphs 77–95; operative judgment paragraph 1] |
| Limit of decision | The discrimination claims were treated as within time; no finding of discrimination or unfair dismissal was made. [Source: Operative judgment paragraph 2] |
Paragraph-backed propositions
- On the evidence, timely presentation of the unfair-dismissal and wage claims was not reasonably practicable; the further eight-day period was reasonable. Paragraphs 77–95; operative judgment paragraph 1 (Procedural determination)
- The discrimination claims were treated as within time; no finding of discrimination or unfair dismissal was made. Operative judgment paragraph 2 (Limit of decision)
Interpretation limits
First-instance procedural ruling on this evidence. It is not an automatic extension of tribunal deadlines for anyone entering treatment, and is not a finding that addiction qualifies as a disability.
Sources
- HMCTS: A Freeman v Sainsbury Supermarkets Ltd, judgment with reasons — Judgment (PDF p. 1); paragraphs 6–10, 35–45 and 77–95.
- Procedural determination — Paragraphs 77–95; operative judgment paragraph 1
- Limit of decision — Operative judgment paragraph 2
Cite this record
Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Treatment and the practical ability to bring a claim in time. Record case-freeman-2021, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-freeman-2021.html
Open the current interactive record · Dataset findings and methods