Case 1403659/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Long, lay representative (Claimant’s partner) v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403659/2019
- Decision date
- 12 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs D Long, lay representative (Claimant’s partner)
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Midgley at Bristol on 5 February 2020. The tribunal dealt with the claimant's age discrimination claim and concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it because the claim was presented outside the primary time limit under section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010. The tribunal also found that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, so the claim was dismissed.
The claimant also applied to amend the case to include constructive unfair dismissal. That application was refused. The tribunal recorded that the proposed claim was presented six years outside the primary time limit in section 111 ERA 1996 and that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction because the claim was not brought within the primary time limit in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant's application to amend to include constructive unfair dismissal was refused. The tribunal said the amendment was presented six years outside the primary time limit in s.111 ERA 1996 and that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
- s.111 ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.