Case 2202064/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J McDonald v MYCITYDEAL Ltd — 2017
- Case reference
- 2202064/2019
- Decision date
- 6 October 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J McDonald
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's claim form, presented on 6 February 2019, was said to raise direct sex discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, unfair dismissal for protected disclosure under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and breach of contract. Employment Judge Quill, sitting alone, heard full argument on jurisdiction on the assumption that the claim form had not already been rejected.
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the protected-disclosure dismissal and breach of contract complaints because they were out of time. It found that it was reasonably practicable for those claims to have been presented within the statutory time limit and, in any event, that they were not presented within a reasonable time afterwards. It also held that the sex discrimination complaint was out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time to 6 February 2019.
The claim form was then rejected under Rule 12(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because it incorrectly stated that an early conciliation exemption applied. The tribunal found that the claims were relevant proceedings to which the ACAS early conciliation regime applied, that ACAS did have power to conciliate the sex discrimination, unfair dismissal and breach of contract complaints, and that the claimant had in fact obtained an early conciliation certificate issued on 6 October 2017 but had not included the number on the form. The judgment records the claimant's right to apply for reconsideration of the rejection.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal held the complaint was out of time under section 123 and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Other | Sex | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected-disclosure dismissal claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal held it was out of time because it was reasonably practicable to present it within the limit and it was not presented within a reasonable time thereafter. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was out of time on the same reasoning as the dismissal complaint. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- sections 18 and 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Rule 12(2) Employment Tribunal 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.