Case 1405719/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Morgan v 1625 Independent People Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405719/2020
- Decision date
- 26 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs S Morgan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Morgan brought claims against 1625 Independent People Ltd and Caring for Communities and People. At the hearing on 2 November 2021, the tribunal recorded that the claim against the First Respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal. No substantive findings on liability were made in relation to that respondent in the written record.
The claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal found that it had been brought outside the statutory time limit for Equality Act claims under s.123 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time so that the claim could proceed. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would follow unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the claim against the First Respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed because it was brought outside the statutory time limit under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and the tribunal was not persuaded it was just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- 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.