Case 1602199/2023 · Employment Tribunal

IN PERSON FOR THE v Respondent — 2024

Case reference: 1602199/2023
Decision date: 22 April 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

IN PERSON FOR THE

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Kadressen Sawmy, brought a victimisation complaint against Kelly Ann Coggins and Rachel Barry. Employment Judge S Povey recorded that the complaint was not brought within the three-month period from the acts complained of, and that it was not brought within such other period as was just and equitable.

By reason of section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, the Tribunal held that it could not consider the complaint. It therefore found that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success and struck it out.

The judgment added three alternative reasons for strike out: that the claim was an abuse of process, that it had no reasonable prospects of success even if time were extended, and that it disclosed no actionable complaint of victimisation. No monetary remedy was awarded.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Victimisation	The Tribunal held the complaint was presented outside the three-month time limit in section 123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It also said the claim was, in the alternative, an abuse of process and disclosed no actionable complaint of victimisation.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

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.

Open official judgment 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.