Case 1301903/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Darr v CORE Education Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 1301903/2022
- Decision date
- 9 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Darr
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Kenward sitting alone, the tribunal dealt with the Respondent's strike-out application, the Claimant's application to vary earlier case management orders, and a later application to amend the claim. The Claimant was the Head Teacher of Rockwood Academy; she had been off work after a road traffic accident on 6 June 2021, had an occupational health report dated 22 September 2021, and had access to union and legal assistance during the relevant period. The tribunal refused permission to amend the claim as proposed on 23 December 2022 because the new complaints, including constructive dismissal, discriminatory dismissal and additional discrimination/victimisation allegations, introduced substantially different areas of inquiry, and the Claimant said she could issue a fresh claim if needed.
The original whistleblowing victimisation complaints under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were dismissed as out of time. The tribunal treated the last pleaded act as around 1 October 2021, noted that ACAS early conciliation began on 24 January 2022 after the primary time limit had already expired, and found that it had been reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier. In the alternative, it found that the Claimant did not present the complaint within a reasonable time once it became reasonably practicable to do so.
The direct discrimination complaints on grounds of race and religion or belief, together with the harassment complaint, were also dismissed as out of time. Applying the just and equitable discretion under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the factors discussed in Adedeji, the tribunal placed weight on the length of the delay, the limited explanation given, the Claimant's access to trade union and solicitor advice, and the prejudice to the Respondent in meeting older allegations. The tribunal did not make merits findings on the underlying discrimination or harassment allegations, and no award was made because all complaints in the original claim failed on limitation.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint under ERA 1996 s.47B dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier and, in any event, that it was not brought within a reasonable time once that became possible. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination complaint on grounds of race dismissed as out of time. The tribunal refused to extend time under the Equality Act 2010 s.123 just and equitable test. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination complaint on grounds of religion or belief dismissed as out of time. The tribunal refused to extend time under the Equality Act 2010 s.123 just and equitable test. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Harassment complaint under the Equality Act 2010 dismissed as out of time. The judgment did not allocate the harassment allegations to a single protected characteristic. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Serco Limited v Wells interests of justice test
- Selkent/Cocking amendment test
- s.48(3) ERA 1996 not reasonably practicable test
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 just and equitable test
- Adedeji factors
- Abercrombie practical consequences
- Galilee relation back principle
- Westward Circuits promptness requirement
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.