Case 1808480/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Lees, Counsel v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1808480/2018
- Decision date
- 16 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr R Lees, Counsel
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in Sheffield on 31 July 2019 before Employment Judge Brain to determine preliminary issues identified in paragraph 7 of the case management summary dated 11 February 2019. The respondent conceded that no issue of jurisdiction arose, and the judgment addressed only the timeliness issue under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal held that the claimant's complaints had not been presented outside the statutory time limit and therefore that it had jurisdiction to entertain them. It also ordered that there should be no order in respect of the costs of and occasioned by the adjournment of the hearing listed for 21 June 2019.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal held the claimant's complaints were not presented outside the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and that it had jurisdiction to entertain them. The judgment does not identify the substantive complaints beyond that reference. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.