Case 1807150/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Miss D Robinson v The University of Huddersfield — 2020

Case reference: 1807150/2019
Decision date: 23 June 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss D Robinson

Respondent

The University of Huddersfield

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At this preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Brain held that the claimant’s complaints brought under the Equality Act 2010 were presented outside the time limits in section 123 of that Act. The Tribunal further held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, and so it did not have jurisdiction to consider those Equality Act complaints.

The judgment records that the claimant’s complaint that she was constructively unfairly dismissed by the respondent was unaffected by this decision. No remedy was determined in this judgment, which was limited to the preliminary jurisdictional issue on the Equality Act claims.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Religion or belief discrimination	The judgment says the claimant’s Equality Act 2010 complaints were presented outside the time limits in section 123 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider them.	Dismissed	Religion or belief	—
Sex discrimination	The judgment says the claimant’s Equality Act 2010 complaints were presented outside the time limits in section 123 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider them.	Dismissed	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.