Case 1600191/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Prentice v Openreach Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1600191/2025
- Decision date
- 21 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Prentice
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the complaints before it were direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation.
Employment Judge Leith held that those complaints had been brought outside the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. On that basis, the Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to consider them and dismissed them. The written judgment records no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The complaint of direct race discrimination was dismissed because it was brought outside the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of direct sex discrimination was dismissed because it was brought outside the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The complaint was described as sexual harassment. It was dismissed because it was brought outside the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The complaint of victimisation was dismissed because it was brought outside the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
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.