Case 1306154/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Morrissey v Barclays Bank UK plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 1306154/2023
- Decision date
- 12 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Morrissey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of pregnancy or maternity discrimination and direct sex discrimination about not being given the opportunity to apply for a permanent Operational Manager role after she had been seconded into that role before taking maternity leave. The respondent said the outcome arose from a 2022 restructure rule under which employees seconded for more than 12 months as at 1 April 2022 were pooled, where necessary, in their seconded roles rather than substantive roles.
The Tribunal found that the alleged discriminatory act was a one-off decision from early 2022 with continuing consequences, rather than conduct extending over a period. The complaints were therefore presented outside the statutory time limit. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the discrimination complaints and considered it inappropriate to assess the fact-based merits without the full evidence.
The Tribunal accepted that the claimant delayed issuing proceedings because she was trying to resolve the matter through the respondent's internal grievance procedure, after looking at gov.uk information and speaking to ACAS, and that she did not know about tribunal time limits until after the grievance appeal outcome. It found the grievance process had been very lengthy, that the claimant acted promptly once told about time limits, and that the prejudice to the claimant if time was not extended outweighed the prejudice to the respondent. Time was extended on just and equitable grounds, so the complaints could proceed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment only. The complaint under section 18 Equality Act 2010 was found to have been presented out of time, but the Tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time and that it had jurisdiction for the complaint to proceed to further case management and final hearing. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment only. The direct sex discrimination complaint under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was found to have been presented out of time, but the Tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time and that it had jurisdiction for the complaint to proceed to further case management and final hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
24 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
- conduct extending over a period
- Robertson and Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Southwark London Borough v Afolabi
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University v Morgan
- Miller v Ministry of Justice
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
- Perth and Kinross Council v Townsley
- Holbrook v Cosgrove
- Lupetti v Wrens Old House Ltd
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
- Apelogun-Gabriels v Lambeth London Borough Council
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- Aziz v FDA
- Barclays Bank plc v Kapur
- Parr v MSR Partners LLP
- Southern Cross Healthcare v Owolabi
- South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust v King
- Eke v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
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.