Case 2203125/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Alexe v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203125/2022
- Decision date
- 7 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Alexe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the claimant's claims for direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, and sex-related harassment had been presented out of time. It also found that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, and struck out those claims because it did not have jurisdiction to hear them.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the direct race discrimination claim was presented out of time, that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the direct sex discrimination claim was presented out of time, that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The judgment describes the claim as sex-related harassment and states that it was presented out of time, that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.
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.