Case 1310371/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1310371/2020
- Decision date
- 14 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Dimbylow on 14 June 2021. The claimant, Mrs E Harris, was in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The hearing was conducted remotely by CVP because of the coronavirus pandemic.
The tribunal considered claims for direct sex discrimination and harassment related to sex. It found that both claims had been presented out of time. On the facts before it, the tribunal held that the claims did not form part of a continuing act or omission for the purpose of bringing them in time.
The tribunal also found that it was not just and equitable to extend time. As a result, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear either claim and both were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Claim for direct sex discrimination presented out of time. The tribunal found it did not form part of a continuing act or omission, and it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Claim for harassment related to sex was presented out of time. The tribunal found it did not form part of a continuing act or omission, and it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- continuing act or omission
- just and equitable
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.