Case 1801828/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Patel v Astrea Academy Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801828/2020
- Decision date
- 31 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Patel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Maidment at Leeds by Skype on 31 July 2020. The tribunal held that the claimant's claims were presented outside the requisite time limits.
For the breach of contract claim, the tribunal found that it was not "not reasonably practicable" for the claim to have been submitted in time. For the discrimination complaints, it found that it was not just and equitable to extend time so that those claims could proceed.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims and struck out all claims. No liability findings or monetary awards were made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim submitted outside the requisite time limit; the tribunal did not consider it not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been submitted in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim submitted outside the requisite time limit; the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim submitted outside the requisite time limit; the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | All claims were struck out because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear them after finding they were out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.