Case 1303784/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Smith v Cambabest Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1303784/2023
- Decision date
- 24 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton Members
- Venue
- by CVP
- Panel members
- Mr C Ledbury, Ms R Addison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Britton and lay members Mr C Ledbury and Ms R Addison, heard Miss C Smith’s claims against Cambabest Limited by CVP on 24 January 2024. The judgment records a unanimous decision. The complaint of harassment arising out of an incident on 24 November 2021 was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit, and the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The claimant’s direct discrimination complaint, framed as an allegation that the respondent failed to treat seriously and/or deal appropriately with her complaint of harassment, was found not well founded and dismissed. The claimant’s constructive dismissal complaint, said to be based upon harassment related to race, was also found not well founded and dismissed. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment arising out of an incident on 24 November 2021 was found to be out of time, and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct discrimination complaint, based on an allegation that the respondent failed to treat seriously and/or deal appropriately with the claimant’s complaint of harassment, was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The constructive dismissal complaint based upon harassment related to race was found not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.