Case 1404259/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Dr A Rani v 1) Ms N Meakin and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404259/2021
- Decision date
- 17 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Dr A Rani
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard two linked claims, one against Ms N Meakin and one against the University of Southampton NHS Foundation Trust. The claimant accepted that her employment ended without notice on 5 July 2021 and that all complaints had arisen by that date. The pleaded matters included unfair dismissal, race, sex, sexual orientation and religion or belief discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay, redundancy payment, other wage-related sums, and a claim described as abuse of personal information.
The central issue was time limits. The tribunal found that the three-month period expired on 4 October 2021, that early conciliation had not been started before then, and that the claim forms presented on 3 November 2021 and 22 November 2021 were therefore outside the primary limitation period. It rejected the argument that a claim form submitted on 30 September 2021 counted as presentation, because it had been rejected for lack of an ACAS certificate and was treated as a nullity. The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that any internal failure by the respondent or any lack of clarity on the tribunal website made the later claims timely.
After the limitation ruling, the tribunal explored whether the claimant wished to advance the alternative arguments that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claims in time, or that the discrimination claims were brought within such period as was just and equitable. The claimant did not pursue those arguments to conclusion, and the tribunal recorded that no evidence or argument had been put forward to satisfy those tests. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal, discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay, redundancy payment and wage-related claims for lack of jurisdiction arising from lateness.
The tribunal separately noted that the abuse of personal information complaint was not a claim within its jurisdiction and, in any event, had no reasonable prospect of success. No merits findings were made on the underlying allegations, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the primary three-month time limit; the claimant accepted the employment ended on 5 July 2021. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed as out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010; no extension arguments were pursued to conclusion. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Dismissed as out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed as out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed as out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay / employee's contract claim; dismissed because it was presented outside the three-month limit in article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- article 7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- rule 13(4) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Pearce v Bank of America Meryl Lynch
- Pryce v Baxterstorey Ltd
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.