Case 2200903/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Khan, friend For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2200903/2019
- Decision date
- 23 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Spencer
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Khan, friend For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing in London Central on 4 September 2019, Employment Judge Spencer considered limitation and jurisdiction. The claimant, Mrs M Ogunlola, appeared by a friend, Mr Khan; the respondent was represented by counsel, Ms E Gordon Walker. The tribunal dealt only with whether the equality claims could proceed, not with the substantive merits of those claims.
The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s claims of direct discrimination because of race and age, and victimisation. It found that those claims had been presented within the extended time limit provided by section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. The decision therefore allowed the claims to proceed.
No remedy was determined at this stage, and no findings were made on liability beyond the limitation and jurisdiction point. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and that a separate case management order was sent with the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider the direct discrimination claim because of race under the extended time limit in section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. No merits finding was made. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider the direct discrimination claim because of age under the extended time limit in section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. No merits finding was made. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Victimisation | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider the victimisation claim because it was presented within the extended time limit in section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. No merits finding was made. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 123(1)(b) 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.