Case 1406413/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Ms P-M Edwards v Ministry of Defence — 2021

Case reference: 1406413/2019
Decision date: 23 August 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Oliver Representation
Venue: Bristol

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms P-M Edwards

Respondent

Ministry of Defence

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing, the claimant confirmed that her disability discrimination claim had been withdrawn, and the Tribunal dismissed that claim upon withdrawal. The remaining issues concerned whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the original race discrimination claim and whether the claimant should be permitted to amend her claim to add or reframe discrimination, harassment and victimisation complaints.

The Tribunal found that section 121(1) Equality Act 2010 required a serving member of the Armed Forces to have made a service complaint about the matter before bringing an Employment Tribunal claim. It held that a service complaint need not be pleaded in technical legal terms, but it must identify that the alleged wrong is discrimination and identify the protected characteristic relied on where applicable.

Having reviewed the claimant's service complaint, the Tribunal found that it referred to bullying and unfair treatment but did not sufficiently identify race discrimination, sex discrimination, harassment related to race or sex, or victimisation as the wrongs complained of. It therefore struck out the race discrimination claim for lack of jurisdiction and refused the amendment application for sex discrimination, harassment related to sex, victimisation, and the proposed race-related amendments.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The disability discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Race discrimination	The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction because the claimant had not made a service complaint about the matter as required by section 121(1) Equality Act 2010.	Struck out	Race	—
Harassment	The proposed amendment to reword the race claim, including harassment related to race, was refused following the Tribunal's jurisdiction decision on the original race discrimination claim.	Other	Race	—
Sex discrimination	The application to amend the claim to add sex discrimination was refused because the Tribunal found it would not have jurisdiction under section 121(1) Equality Act 2010.	Other	Sex	—
Harassment	The application to amend the claim to add harassment related to sex was refused because the Tribunal found it would not have jurisdiction under section 121(1) Equality Act 2010.	Other	Sex	—
Victimisation	The application to amend the claim to add victimisation was refused because the Tribunal found it would not have jurisdiction under section 121(1) Equality Act 2010.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

12 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.