Case 2201258/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Richards v Metro Bank plc OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201258/2020
- Decision date
- 14 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Richards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Nicolle, sitting alone on 11 September 2020, the tribunal considered time-limit and jurisdiction issues in Ms J Richards's claims against Metro Bank PLC. It held that the constructive unfair dismissal claim under sections 94, 95(1)(c) and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was presented outside the section 111 time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought within time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it and dismissed that claim.
The tribunal also found that the discriminatory constructive dismissal claim on account of sex and/or race was brought outside the primary time limit, but that it would be just and equitable under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 to permit that claim to proceed. It further found that the victimisation claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 was brought within the primary time limit.
For the avoidance of doubt, the judgment records that the direct discrimination and harassment claims on account of sex and/or race proceed to a full merits hearing. The decision does not determine liability on those Equality Act claims and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The constructive unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996 was brought outside the section 111 time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held that the sex discrimination claim, including the discriminatory constructive dismissal aspect, was out of time but that it would be just and equitable under section 123 Equality Act 2010 to allow it to proceed. The judgment also states that the direct discrimination claims on sex proceed to a full merits hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the race discrimination claim, including the discriminatory constructive dismissal aspect, was out of time but that it would be just and equitable under section 123 Equality Act 2010 to allow it to proceed. The judgment also states that the direct discrimination claims on race proceed to a full merits hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found that the victimisation claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010 was brought within the primary time limit. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.39(7)(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.