Case 1306317/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D. Stone v St Christopher’s Fellowship Heard: Midlands West (by Cloud Video Platform) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1306317/2023
- Decision date
- 10 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Power
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D. Stone
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Power sitting alone on 10 September 2024, the tribunal amended the respondent's name by consent to St Christopher’s Fellowship. The hearing was by Cloud Video Platform and the claimant, Mrs D. Stone, appeared in person.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because it had not been presented in time and the tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it in time. No substantive findings on the merits of dismissal were made in the judgment.
The tribunal also dismissed the race discrimination complaint and the harassment complaint on the grounds of sex, both of which were pleaded in the claim form dated 4 October 2023. It found that these claims were not presented in time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for them. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the complaint was not presented in time and it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because it was not presented in time and the tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on the grounds of sex, as pleaded in the claim form dated 4 October 2023, was dismissed as out of time and the tribunal declined to extend time on the just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.