Case 1402698/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Boyce v Ministry of Defence — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402698/2021
- Decision date
- 23 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Boyce
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal decided a preliminary time-limit issue concerning the claimant's Equality Act 2010 discrimination complaints. It held that it was just and equitable to extend time for complaints relating to the respondent's reply to the claimant's asserted grievance dated 16 April 2021, on the basis that the claimant asserted this was the last in a series of acts of behaviour. The Tribunal recorded that whether there was conduct extending over a period still had to be determined.
The Tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the complaint was out of time, so the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider it. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records a preliminary ruling that it was just and equitable to extend time for the Equality Act 2010 discrimination complaints relating to the reply to the claimant's asserted grievance on 16 April 2021. The merits and whether there was conduct extending over a period remained to be determined. The disability classification is taken from the case listing category rather than the short judgment text itself. | Other | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint described as constructive unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed because it was out of time and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.