Case 1601515/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Mire v Chopstix Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601515/2020
- Decision date
- 30 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Mire
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A Mire brought complaints of sexual harassment, direct race discrimination and direct age discrimination against Chopstix Limited. The tribunal, sitting at Cardiff by video on 28 June 2021 before Employment Judge G Cawthray, dealt with the case as a time-limit issue and did not determine the complaints on their merits.
The tribunal found that all three complaints were not presented in time. It also held that it was not just or equitable to extend time. On that basis, the complaints of sexual harassment, direct race discrimination and direct age discrimination were dismissed.
No monetary remedy was awarded, and the written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the relevant period.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Complaint described as sexual harassment. The tribunal held it was not presented in time and refused to extend time because it was not just or equitable to do so. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination complaint was held to be out of time and the tribunal declined to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The direct age discrimination complaint was held to be out of time and the tribunal declined to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just or 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.