Case 2202987/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Riach v Sir Philip Green and 2 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202987/2019
- Decision date
- 17 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms M Riach
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 2 March 2020, Employment Judge A M Snelson, sitting alone, held that the detriment claims pleaded in paragraphs 10-25 and said to arise from events in January and February 2018 were out of time. The tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider those claims and dismissed them.
The First Respondent's application to be removed from the proceedings was refused. In the commentary, the judge recorded that he was not persuaded by the submission that the sex discrimination claim against the First Respondent, advanced under the Osipov line of authority and based on the alleged constructive dismissal of the Claimant, was untenable in principle, and that an arguable claim had been shown. By consent, the Respondents were ordered to provide disclosure of disclosable documents by 6 March 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held that the detriment claims in paragraphs 10-25, based on events said to have occurred in January and February 2018, were out of time and outside its jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Osipov line of authority
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.