Case 1600640/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Miss B P Alam v Ms E Boer — 2023

Case reference: 1600640/2022
Decision date: 21 February 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss B P Alam

Respondent

Ms E Boer

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At Cardiff, by video, on 20 February 2023, Employment Judge S Jenkins heard the case with the Claimant appearing in person and no response having been received from the Respondent. The written judgment records that the Claimant's complaint was not brought within the stipulated time limit.

The tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. The complaint was therefore dismissed. The written record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	The extracted judgment text does not specify the underlying allegation in detail; this claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing for the case. The tribunal dismissed the complaint because it was out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time.	Dismissed	Age	—
Race discrimination	The extracted judgment text does not specify the underlying allegation in detail; this claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing for the case. The tribunal dismissed the complaint because it was out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time.	Dismissed	Race	—

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.

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.