Case 1802094/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Sadler v Mr C. Johnson (Consultant) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802094/2022
- Decision date
- 18 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss E Sadler
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Leeds by CVP on 18 April 2023, before Employment Judge Bright, Miss E Sadler's claims against Mr C Johnson and The Symphony Group Plc were considered on jurisdiction. The written judgment is brief and does not set out the underlying allegations.
The Tribunal held that the claims were time-barred pursuant to section 123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The claims were therefore dismissed. The judgment records no remedy or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The written judgment does not break down the allegations by claim; this claim type is taken from the GOV.UK jurisdiction code for the decision. The Tribunal held that the claims were time-barred under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment does not break down the allegations by claim; this claim type is taken from the GOV.UK jurisdiction code for the decision. The Tribunal held that the claims were time-barred under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 123 Equality Act 2010
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.