Case 2200517/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S. N. Jamie v British Broadcasting Corporation — 2019
- Case reference
- 2200517/2020
- Decision date
- 2 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S. N. Jamie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing considered whether the claimant's equal pay claim was presented in time. The claimant had worked for the BBC until March 2019 and claimed equal pay with another employee. He said he learned in autumn 2018 by hearsay that the comparator was paid more, raised a grievance, received a grievance outcome in May 2019, appealed, and received the appeal outcome on 31 October 2019. He contacted ACAS on 2 December 2019 and presented the tribunal claim on 9 February 2020.
The tribunal held that the case was a standard case under the equal pay time-limit provisions, so proceedings had to be started within six months of termination of employment. The tribunal found that the only potentially relevant exception was a concealment case, but the claimant did not seriously assert that the BBC had deliberately concealed the information, and he had been sufficiently clear about the facts to lodge his grievance in November 2018.
The tribunal also stated that even if there had been deliberate concealment until after employment ended, the claimant knew the comparator was paid more when he received the May 2019 grievance outcome, and he still did not contact ACAS until after six months from that date. The tribunal concluded that it had no discretion to extend time in equal pay cases and dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The equal pay claim under sections 65 and 66 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- sections 65 and 66 Equality Act 2010
- section 129 Equality Act 2010
- section 130(4) 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.