Case 1802968/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Siddique v Roundhay School HELD by CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802968/2021
- Decision date
- 22 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Speker OBE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Siddique
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Speker OBE DL considered whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claims. Miss Siddique had worked as a SEN teaching assistant and was dismissed for gross misconduct on 13 July 2020 after an incident involving Student A. The claim form was not presented until 21 May 2021, after ACAS early conciliation had begun on 25 March 2021.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was out of time under s.111(2) ERA 1996. It found that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three-month period and did not accept the claimant's account that she had been told by ACAS to wait for the outcome of her appeal before starting tribunal proceedings. The tribunal also found that the claimant could have made reasonable enquiries, including through the ACAS website and by speaking to her union, and that her references to illness, long Covid, and starting new employment by the end of March 2021 did not explain the delay.
For the race and religion-or-belief discrimination claims, the tribunal applied the just and equitable extension test under the Equality Act 2010 and refused to extend time. It relied on the length of the delay, the claimant's failure to engage with the grievance investigation, the lack of a persuasive explanation for the period from January to March 2021, and prejudice to the respondent and the wider administration of justice. To the extent the discrimination allegations related to the closure of the grievance on 17 December 2020 and the appeal on 5 January 2021, the tribunal struck those allegations out under Regulation 37 because no basis was advanced to show that they had a reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented on 21 May 2021 after the effective date of termination on 13 July 2020; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three-month time limit and dismissed it as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed as out of time in relation to the dismissal dated 13 July 2020; the tribunal did not extend time as just and equitable. Any allegation that the closure of the grievance on 17 December 2020 and the appeal on 5 January 2021 was discriminatory was struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed as out of time in relation to the dismissal dated 13 July 2020; the tribunal did not extend time as just and equitable. Any allegation that the closure of the grievance on 17 December 2020 and the appeal on 5 January 2021 was discriminatory was struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.213(1) Equality Act 2010
- Wall's Meat v Khan
- Palmer v Southend on Sea
- Marks and Spencer v Williams-Ryan
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Hospital Trust
- Anyanwu
- Ahir v British Airways Plc
- Regulation 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.