Case 1301779/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Naminder Kaur Authi v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1301779/2023
- Decision date
- 19 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Naminder Kaur Authi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that all claims were not presented within the applicable time limit. It decided that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit.
On that basis, all claims were dismissed. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the applicable period.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that all claims were dismissed because they were not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The judgment text does not separately describe the disability discrimination allegations; classification is supported by the gov.uk listing category supplied in Layer 1. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that all claims were dismissed because they were not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The judgment text does not separately describe the race discrimination allegations; classification is supported by the gov.uk listing category supplied in Layer 1. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend the time limit
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.