Case 1601645/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Mayze v Mid and West Wales Fire & Rescue Service — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601645/2019
- Decision date
- 20 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Mayze
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge R Harfield sitting alone in Cardiff on 12 August 2020. The written judgment records that the claimant's victimisation claim under the Equality Act 2010, as set out in the claim form presented on 10 September 2019, was presented outside the primary time limit. The tribunal was not satisfied that it was presented within any further period that would be just and equitable, and held that it had no jurisdiction to hear that complaint.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the claim to add further acts of victimisation. It also refused the respondent's application for strike out or a deposit order in relation to the unauthorised deduction from wages claim, and recorded that that claim, together with the complaint about the start date for continuity of service in the statement of particulars of employment, would proceed to a full hearing under a separate case management order. No monetary remedy was awarded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The Tribunal held that the victimisation claim in the claim form was presented outside the primary time limit, was not brought within such additional period as the Tribunal considered just and equitable, and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.