Case 2200188/2024 · Employment Tribunal
MR SANDOR KIPA v TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200188/2024
- Decision date
- 11 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead Appearances
- Venue
- by CVP from the Central London Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR SANDOR KIPA
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered complaints of sexual orientation harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 arising from things said on 18 April 2021 and 19 September 2022. It held that both complaints were presented outside the applicable time limit.
The tribunal further found that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit, so those harassment complaints were dismissed. The judgment states that other complaints forming part of the claim were not dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Complaint under section 26 Equality Act 2010 concerning things said on 18 April 2021, which came to the Claimant's attention on 7 July 2021; held out of time and not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | Complaint under section 26 Equality Act 2010 concerning things said on 19 September 2022; held out of time and not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.