therecruitmentjunction.co.uk

What this page is and what it is not

This page is a high level map of the legal landscape around the TRJ case. It explains why phrases like "pre action protocol", "Tribunal timetable" or "County Court claim" appear in the commentary and why they matter in the context of the CJA Awards.

It is not legal advice. If you are considering a claim you should speak to a qualified adviser such as a solicitor, law centre or advice charity. Time limits in particular are strict and can be complex.

Employment Tribunal – Equality Act and related issues

Employment Tribunals in Great Britain hear claims about workplace rights. That includes discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, victimisation and harassment in employment and some work related relationships. Where a charity or provider behaves like an employer or work placement host, Tribunal jurisdiction can become relevant.

Typical Equality Act routes

In broad terms, Equality Act claims often involve arguments that:

• a person is disabled within the legal definition
• the organisation knew or should reasonably have known about this
• reasonable adjustments were needed but not made
• the person was treated unfavourably because of disability or something arising from it

In the TRJ dispute, issues raised include refusal to make communication adjustments, blocking email addresses while disability related requests were active and responding punitively to a polite challenge.

Time limits and procedure in outline

Tribunal claims usually have short limitation periods, often measured in months from the act complained of rather than years. ACAS Early Conciliation is normally required before a claim can be issued.

None of this changes because an organisation has won an award. Awards do not extend deadlines and do not cancel the right to bring a claim.

County Court – data rights, Equality Act and contract

County Court claims can cover a wide range of civil issues. In a case like TRJ, possible routes include:

• UK GDPR and Data Protection Act breaches
• Equality Act claims that sit outside strict employment
• contract based disputes about services or promised support
• claims linked to unlawful blocking or erasure of data

Data protection context

The TRJ case involves concerns that:

• a Subject Access Request (SAR) was mishandled or ignored
• data may have been erased while rights were being exercised
• multiple email addresses were blocked while lawful correspondence was ongoing

County Court can be used to seek remedies for certain breaches of UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act, including compensation where damage can be shown. This is normally a last resort after complaints and regulator routes have been tried.

Equality Act and services

The Equality Act does not only apply to employers. It also covers service providers. Where a charity is delivering support to the public, it must not discriminate against disabled people and must make reasonable adjustments. County Court can sometimes be the forum for those claims.

What the CJA Awards are not

The Criminal Justice Alliance Awards are not a court, a regulator or an ombudsman. They are not required to apply the Equality Act, UK GDPR or the Civil Procedure Rules in the way a judge would.

An award does not:

• prove that no discrimination took place
• prove that all data handling was lawful
• prove that safeguarding concerns were properly managed
• override evidence already on record

Put simply, the panel gives a trophy. It does not make binding findings about law.

Public-interest reporting alongside legal routes

The Reasonable Adjustment and this shadow domain are used to:

• publish documents that are already in the record
• hold a timeline of events that funders and regulators can inspect
• provide context for journalists, awards bodies and MPs
• support disabled people and service users who face similar patterns elsewhere

Publishing evidence openly makes it much harder for institutions to quietly rewrite history while formal complaints, pre action correspondence or proceedings are in motion.

Nothing on this site stops TRJ from presenting its own version of events. It simply means the public can test those claims against documents, emails, FOI responses and funding records.

What this means for different readers

For service users and disabled people

If you recognise similar patterns in your own case, this material can help you spot which issues might sit in Equality Act territory, which are data protection issues and which are simply poor practice. It is still important to get your own advice because time limits and facts vary.

For staff and trustees

If you sit on a board or work inside a charity, this case is a reminder that:

• blocking communication rarely fixes anything
• premature deletion of data can create bigger legal risks
• funding statements should match the paperwork
• awards do not cancel obligations under law

For funders and awards bodies

Grantmakers and awards panels can use this case to review their own due diligence. That may include:

• checking for active legal disputes before celebrating an organisation
• checking for serious safeguarding or equality concerns in the public record
• offering a clear channel for service users to submit evidence

Related CJA Awards pages

• 2025 Outstanding Small Organisation - The Recruitment Junction
• Digital evidence, logs and award due diligence
• Fair process needs facts
• Reasonable adjustments for shortlisted organisations
• How the TRJ case shaped The Reasonable Adjustment and Ki-Ki
• Resources for nominees, staff and service users
• CJA Awards FAQ