Case 1401188/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Maslach v Princess Yachts Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401188/2021
- Decision date
- 29 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Oliver Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Maslach
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Bristol on 10 March 2022 before Employment Judge Oliver. The claimant, Mr R Maslach, was represented in person and the respondent, Princess Yachts Limited, was represented by a solicitor. The judgment dealt only with limitation and whether the claims could proceed.
The tribunal recorded that the claims for race discrimination and harassment were not made within three months, plus any early conciliation extension, of the acts complained of. It nevertheless found that the claims were brought within a further period that the tribunal considered just and equitable.
On that basis, the claims were allowed to proceed to a full hearing. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary limitation ruling only; the tribunal found the race discrimination claim was presented outside the primary three-month period but within a further period that was just and equitable, so it could proceed to a full hearing. No merits determination was made. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary limitation ruling only; the tribunal found the harassment claim was presented outside the primary three-month period but within a further period that was just and equitable, so it could proceed to a full hearing. No merits determination was made. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.