Case 1802554/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Audsley-Stratton v Kingston upon Hull City Council Heard on 15 November 2021 (by CVP) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802554/2021
- Decision date
- 17 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Mr C Childs, Mr D Pugh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Audsley-Stratton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case on 15 November 2021 before Employment Judge D N Jones sitting with Mr C Childs and Mr D Pugh. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal recorded that the claims had not been presented within 3 months of the last act complained of.
It further found that the claims were not presented within such further period as was just and equitable. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claims. The decision was unanimous and the claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Dismissed because the claims were not presented within 3 months of the last act complained of and were not presented within such further period as was just and equitable. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed because the claims were not presented within 3 months of the last act complained of and were not presented within such further period as was just and equitable. | 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.