Case 2200561/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Corejova v Dominic Savio Pereira — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200561/2022
- Decision date
- 1 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Corejova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central on 1 July 2022, Employment Judge E Burns sat alone and heard the claim with the claimant appearing in person and Mr Graham, Counsel, appearing for the respondent. The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction over the unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because Ms Corejova had been employed by Timerest Limited for less than two years, so the claim could not proceed even if Timerest Limited were added as a respondent.
The claimant's claims for unpaid monies were dismissed upon withdrawal. Her claim that she was discriminated against because of gender reassignment was also dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal struck out all remaining Equality Act 2010 claims under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure because they did not have reasonable prospects of success, against Dominic Savio Pereira or against Timerest Limited.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant had less than two years' employment with Timerest Limited, so the claim could not proceed even if Timerest Limited were added as a respondent. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's unpaid monies claims were dismissed upon withdrawal; the judgment does not specify the legal basis of those claims. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Gender reassignment discrimination | The claimant's discrimination claim because of gender reassignment was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Gender reassignment | — |
| Other | All remaining claims under the Equality Act 2010 were struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because they did not have reasonable prospects of success, against the respondent or against Timerest Limited. The judgment does not identify each remaining claim individually. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.