Case 2200492/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Bako v Cygnet NW Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200492/2021
- Decision date
- 17 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Bako
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 18 November 2021, Employment Judge Deol ordered Miss D Bako to explain by 4 January 2022 why her claim should be allowed to proceed despite being presented outside the normal statutory limitation period. Paragraph 11 of that case management summary warned that, if she did not comply, the claim would be struck out without further notice.
The claimant did not comply with that direction. After the case was transferred to the Leeds Employment Tribunal, the tribunal wrote on 12 January 2022 inviting representations on whether it was in the interests of justice to strike out the claim or whether a hearing should be requested. The claimant did not respond.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's employment ended on 27 August 2020, the early conciliation certificate was dated 11 December 2020, and the claim was presented on 4 February 2021. It held that the claim was out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, that no explanation had been given for why a longer period would be just and equitable, and that the claim should therefore be struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim struck out as presented outside the primary limitation period under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The extracted reasons do not specify the underlying discrimination head(s) or protected characteristic(s). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- 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.