Case 1309546/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1309546/2020
- Decision date
- 1 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hindmarch Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham in private
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal substituted B3 for B1 as the correct respondent. It then dealt only with jurisdiction and time limit issues; there were no merits findings on the underlying allegations and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment refers to a complaint under s53 Equality Act 2010; the extracted text does not specify the underlying nature of that complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Held to have been presented out of time and not within a further reasonable period. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Presented out of time; tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Presented out of time; tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | Presented out of time; tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The judgment refers to sexual harassment; the protected characteristic is recorded as sex. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to blacklisting; no further detail is provided in the extracted text. | Struck out |
Legal tests applied
3 references- presented out of time
- not within a further reasonable period
- not just and equitable to extend time
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.