Case 1600238/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L. Ucheobi v Wrexham County Borough Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600238/2022
- Decision date
- 20 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L. Ucheobi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine Ms L. Ucheobi's race discrimination claim or her claim for unauthorised deduction from wages because both were covered by a settlement agreement dated 5 March 2021. On that basis, the claims were not determined on their substantive merits and were dismissed.
In the alternative, the tribunal found that the race discrimination claim had been presented out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time to 23 February 2022, the date the claim was presented. It also found that the unauthorised deduction from wages claim was out of time because it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it in time. The tribunal's judgment therefore dismissed both claims in consequence of those findings.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine the race discrimination claim because of a settlement agreement dated 5 March 2021. Alternatively, it found the claim was presented out of time and it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine the wages claim because of a settlement agreement dated 5 March 2021. Alternatively, it found the claim was presented out of time because it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable
- reasonably practicable
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.