In Person For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 1308964/2020
Decision date: 13 October 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Harding Dated

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In Person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing on 13 October 2022, Employment Judge Harding considered Ms A Smith’s claims against DHL Services Ltd. The judgment records that the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.

The tribunal found that the claimant’s claims of race discrimination and sex discrimination were out of time. It further found that they were not brought within such further period as the tribunal considered just and equitable. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims and dismissed them.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Found out of time at a preliminary hearing; the tribunal held the claim was not brought within such further period as it considered just and equitable and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it.	Dismissed	Race	—
Sex discrimination	Found out of time at a preliminary hearing; the tribunal held the claim was not brought within such further period as it considered just and equitable and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it.	Dismissed	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.