Case 1601706/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Price v PIQ Laboratories Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601706/2020
- Decision date
- 11 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Price
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge R Harfield, sitting alone by video on 8 February 2021, dealt only with a preliminary limitation issue. The claimant's ET1, presented on 15 August 2020, alleged unfair dismissal and sex discrimination arising from events between June 2019 and May 2020. The tribunal recorded that he worked for the respondent from 27 January 2019 until 28 May 2020, so he had less than two years' qualifying service and could not pursue an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The harassment allegation related to sex was based on remarks and exclusions said to have been made mainly by Ashleigh Knowles, with occasional involvement by Debbie Powell, including a final alleged incident on 26 May 2020.
Applying the principle that it should not conduct a mini-trial at a jurisdictional preliminary hearing and taking the claimant's case at its highest, the tribunal held that the harassment claim was sufficiently arguable to proceed to a full hearing. It noted that Acas early conciliation ran from 8 July 2020 to 15 July 2020, so a 26 May 2020 act would fall within the extended primary limitation period to 1 September 2020. The earlier allegations could, if proved, amount to a continuing discriminatory state of affairs under Hendricks, and the tribunal left the questions of whether the conduct occurred, whether it was harassment related to sex, and whether any just and equitable extension was needed to the full hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The reasons record that the claimant had less than two years' qualifying service, so an ordinary unfair dismissal claim was not available; no substantive unfair dismissal merits were determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal held there was a sufficiently arguable case that the harassment-related-to-sex claim was presented in time and should proceed to a full hearing. The tribunal made no findings on whether the alleged conduct occurred. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Sridhar v Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKEAT/0066/20
- Hendricks v the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2003] ICR 530
- continuing discriminatory state of affairs
- just and equitable extension of 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.