Case 1305630/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Otshudy v IKEA Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1305630/2019
- Decision date
- 22 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood Appearance
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Otshudy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal because it had been presented after the expiry of the statutory time limit. The tribunal found that the time limit could not be extended because it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within the time limit.
The claimant's remaining complaints of race discrimination and disability discrimination were not finally determined in this judgment. They were listed for a hearing on 22-26 June 2020, and the tribunal made no strike out or deposit order in relation to those complaints.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as presented out of time; the tribunal found the time limit could not be extended because it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination complaint was not finally determined; it was listed for hearing on 22-26 June 2020 and no strike out or deposit order was made. | Other | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination complaint was not finally determined; it was listed for hearing on 22-26 June 2020 and no strike out or deposit order was made. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- statutory time limit
- reasonably practicable
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.