Case 2201078/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201078/2021
- Decision date
- 19 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elliott Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Elliott sitting alone at London Central on 19 November 2021, the tribunal dealt with allegations 1, 5 and 8 in Mr S McKenzie-Hunte’s claim against the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. The judgment records that allegation 1 and allegation 5 were described as direct race discrimination/harassment and were found to be out of time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them.
Allegation 8 was struck out because it had no reasonable prospects of success and was outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The decision did not determine liability on the merits and did not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Allegation 1 in the claim form; the tribunal held it was out of time and had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Allegation 5 in the claim form; described in the judgment as direct race discrimination/harassment and held to be out of time, with no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Other | Allegation 8 was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success and being outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction; the extracted text does not specify the underlying legal label. | Struck out | — | — |
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.