Case 2202915/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K D Woodruffe v Marks and Spencer plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202915/2019
- Decision date
- 16 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K D Woodruffe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant brought claims of race and disability discrimination against Marks & Spencer Plc. Employment Judge Adkin sat alone at London Central Employment Tribunal on 10 January 2020.
The judgment states that, pursuant to section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, it was just and equitable to extend time for the claimant's race and disability discrimination claims. No written reasons or merits findings are included in the judgment text supplied, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment only records that time was extended under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 for the race discrimination claim; it does not determine the merits. | Other | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment only records that time was extended under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 for the disability discrimination claim; it does not determine the merits. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.