Case 2200320/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Husbands v London Borough of Islington — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200320/2023
- Decision date
- 13 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms Kilgannon, Mr Pell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Husbands
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's direct discrimination complaints relating to race, age, sex and disability. Some complaints were dismissed because they were not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time; the remaining direct discrimination complaints were dismissed as not well-founded.
The tribunal also dismissed the harassment complaints related to sex and disability. Some specified harassment allegations were dismissed as out of time with no just and equitable extension, and the remaining harassment complaints were dismissed as not well-founded.
The complaint of detriment for making protected disclosures and the complaint of victimisation were both dismissed as not well-founded. No remedy award was made in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal dismissed one direct race discrimination complaint as out of time and declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis; the remaining direct race discrimination complaints were dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The direct age discrimination complaint was dismissed as out of time, with no just and equitable extension granted. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | One direct sex discrimination complaint was dismissed as out of time and the remaining direct sex discrimination complaint was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The harassment related to sex complaint about allegations of shouting in December 2020 was dismissed as out of time; the remaining harassment related to sex complaint was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Several direct disability discrimination complaints were dismissed as out of time, with no just and equitable extension granted; the remaining direct disability discrimination complaints were dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Several harassment related to disability complaints were dismissed as out of time, with no just and equitable extension granted; the remaining harassment related to disability complaints were dismissed as not well-founded. |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.