Case 2200650/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200650/2022
- Decision date
- 4 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Stout Tribunal
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- S Aslett, L Moreton
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case on 4 October 2022 before Employment Judge H Stout, with tribunal members S Aslett and L Moreton. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr J Partridge of counsel.
The tribunal first decided that the claimant’s claim was not brought within the time limit in s 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010. It further held that it was not just and equitable to extend time under s 123(1)(b). On that basis alone, the claim could not proceed.
The tribunal also addressed the substance of the claim and found that the respondent did not contravene ss 13 and 39(2)(d) Equality Act 2010 by directly discriminating against the claimant because of her race. The judgment records that the claimant’s claim was dismissed in its entirety against both remaining respondents.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claim was found to be out of time under s 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010, and the tribunal was not prepared to extend time under s 123(1)(b). The tribunal also found that the respondent did not contravene ss 13 and 39(2)(d) Equality Act 2010 by directly discriminating against the claimant because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- ss 13 and 39(2)(d) 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.