Case 1404329/2021 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 1404329/2021
Decision date: 8 September 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Gray Appearances

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing in the race discrimination proceedings between Mr M Liepa and Polystar Plastics Ltd. The claimant accepted that the first claim, presented on 9 November 2021, was not validly presented because he could not prove that the respondent had already contacted ACAS. The tribunal recorded that a later ACAS certificate could not cure the original defect, following J. Pryce v Baxterstorey Limited [2022] EAT 61.

The second claim was received by post on 1 June 2022 and was treated as validly presented. It was, however, out of time on its face. The tribunal noted that the underlying complaint related to race discrimination allegations said to arise in September and October 2021 and around the dismissal, but the substantive issues had not yet been case managed.

The tribunal then considered whether it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. Applying the factors discussed in British Coal v Keeble, Southwark LBC v Afolabi, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg UHB v Morgan, and Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, it accepted that the claimant had a genuine belief about ACAS, acted promptly once he understood what was required after the 12 May 2022 case management hearing, and had not acted unreasonably.

The tribunal found no evidence that the delay had prejudiced the respondent beyond having to respond to the claim, and it noted that there was nothing before it at that stage to show the underlying allegations lacked merit. On that basis, it held that time should be extended for the second claim. No substantive liability or remedy issues were determined in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Preliminary judgment only: the first ET1 was held not to be validly presented because the claimant could not prove that the respondent had already contacted ACAS, and the tribunal noted that a later ACAS certificate could not cure the original defect after J. Pryce v Baxterstorey Limited [2022] EAT 61. The claim form also referred to possible victimisation.	Other	Race	—
Race discrimination	The second ET1 was accepted as validly presented on 1 June 2022, and the tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. The substantive race discrimination complaints were not yet case managed and were not determined on the merits.	Other	Race	—

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.