Case 2203362/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Nadia Hone v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2023
- Case reference
- 2203362/2021
- Decision date
- 8 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nadia Hone
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal decided that the claimant's claims of direct discrimination on the grounds of disability, race and sex were out of time. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit, and therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear those claims.
The Tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend her claim to include claims of sex discrimination, race discrimination and victimisation relating to two emails and the time taken by the respondent to conclude the claimant's grievance. It also excluded specified historical matters from the protected disclosure claim as not relevant to that claim.
The claimant's application for the respondent's Grounds of Resistance to be struck out was refused. No remedy award was made in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim was out of time; the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim was out of time; the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim was out of time; the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.