Case 1600273/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Cairns v Milkwood Care Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600273/2022
- Decision date
- 5 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Representation
- Venue
- By video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Cairns
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing held by video on 2 May 2023, Employment Judge S Moore struck out the claim in case 1600273/2022. The tribunal found that it had been presented outside the prescribed time limit under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The judgment is brief and does not set out separate findings on the individual allegations beyond the time-limit ruling. It records that the claimant’s remaining claims under separate case number 1600319/2023, described as constructive unfair dismissal and victimisation, were to proceed to the final hearing listed for 14 August 2023; those claims were not determined in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Struck out because the claim was presented outside the time limit in section 123(1) Equality Act 2010 and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. The judgment does not separately analyse the factual basis of this head of claim. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | Struck out because the claim was presented outside the time limit in section 123(1) Equality Act 2010 and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. The judgment does not separately analyse the factual basis of this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123(1) 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.