Case 1404279/2023 · Employment Tribunal
VB v Mr A Hughes and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1404279/2023
- Decision date
- 10 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
3 namedClaimant
VB
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Southampton on 4 October 2024, in the joined cases 1404279/2023 and 1400069/2024, Employment Judge Rayner held that it was just and equitable to extend time. The effect of that ruling was that the claimant's discrimination claims against Mr A Hughes and Leonardo Limited were within the statutory time limits and the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear them.
The written judgment records that reasons had already been provided to the parties and are not included in the written record. No substantive liability findings or remedy were recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary time-limit ruling only: the tribunal extended time and held this claim was within the statutory time limits and within its jurisdiction to hear; written reasons had already been provided separately. | Other | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Preliminary time-limit ruling only: the tribunal extended time and held this claim was within the statutory time limits and within its jurisdiction to hear; written reasons had already been provided separately. | Other | Sexual orientation | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.