Case 1401421/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401421/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leverton Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss N Utjonkova, brought claims described in the judgment as unfair constructive dismissal, unpaid sick pay, whistleblowing detriment, direct race discrimination, and harassment related to race. The respondent was L. Rowland & Company (Retail) Limited. The hearing took place remotely by video at Bristol before Employment Judge Leverton on 14 June 2023.
The tribunal did not determine the substantive merits of any of the claims. It held that it was reasonably practicable for the unfair constructive dismissal and unpaid sick pay claims to have been presented within the applicable three-month period, and also reasonably practicable for the whistleblowing detriment claim to have been presented within three months of the last act in the alleged series. Those claims were presented out of time and the tribunal found no grounds to extend time.
For the race discrimination claims, the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend the three-month time limit for the direct race discrimination and race-related harassment claims under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010. Those claims were also therefore out of time.
Because all of the claims were presented outside the relevant statutory time limits and the tribunal found no basis to extend time, it concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claims and dismissed them all. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Described in the judgment as a claim for unfair constructive dismissal. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the three-month time limit and found no grounds to extend time, so it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this as a claim for unpaid sick pay. It was found to be presented outside the relevant statutory time limit, with no basis to extend time, so the tribunal dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the whistleblowing detriment claim to have been presented within the three-month limit from the last act in the alleged series. The claim was out of time and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend the three-month time limit for the direct race discrimination claim. It was therefore dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim was described as harassment related to race. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Article 7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable
- 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.