Case 1402207/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Newsome v Brake Bros Ltd Hampshire County Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402207/2021
- Decision date
- 8 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Cadney Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I Newsome
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs I Newsome brought sex discrimination claims against Brake Bros Ltd and Hampshire County Council, alleging sexual harassment by a former manager between spring and autumn 2020. The tribunal noted that the claimant lodged an internal complaint on 28 October 2020, was told the outcome on 20 November 2020, sought to appeal on 25 February 2021, and later resigned on 22 July 2021, although no claim arose from the termination of employment.
The tribunal found that the primary limitation period expired on 20 January 2021. The claimant contacted ACAS on 15 December 2020 and obtained an early conciliation certificate, which would have extended time by one day, but the first ET1 was still rejected because it did not contain the certificate number. The claimant then entered a second period of ACAS early conciliation on 21 April 2021 and submitted a second ET1 on 18 June 2021, which was also out of time because the limitation period had already expired before that conciliation began.
The tribunal considered whether it should extend time on a just and equitable basis under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It referred to Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link, British Coal Corporation v Keeble, and Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust, and noted the public interest in enforcing time limits. It accepted that there was relatively contemporaneous internal grievance evidence and therefore limited evidential prejudice to the respondent, but found there was no good reason for the delay and no adequate explanation for the inconsistent account given in the two claim forms about ACAS conciliation and the certificate.
Balancing the relevant factors, the tribunal was not persuaded that an extension of time was justified. It therefore dismissed the claimant’s sex discrimination claims as having been presented out of time and vacated the hearing listed for December 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Claim dismissed at a preliminary hearing as presented out of time. The tribunal recorded that the claimant alleged sexual harassment by a former manager, but it did not determine the merits of those allegations. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust
- s.33 Limitation Act 1980
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.