Case 1803515/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Lisitsina v St Anne'S Community Services — 2020
- Case reference
- 1803515/2019
- Decision date
- 28 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Lisitsina
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the victimisation complaint on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. No merits determination is recorded for that claim in the written judgment, which was given orally at the hearing.
The remaining complaints, which the case listing identifies as race discrimination and religion or belief discrimination, were held to have been presented more than three months after the last act complained of. The tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to allow them to proceed in all the circumstances, and those complaints were therefore dismissed as out of time.
The claimant's application to amend was refused. The tribunal stated that the hardship to the respondent if the amendment were allowed was greater than the hardship to the claimant if it were refused. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Struck out on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because it was presented more than 3 months after the last act complained of and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to allow it to proceed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed because it was presented more than 3 months after the last act complained of and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to allow it to proceed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- 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.