Case 2204428/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Brittney Does not appear v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2204428/2020
- Decision date
- 18 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms K Brittney Does not appear
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal first addressed the sex discrimination material. It treated the main pleaded sex discrimination complaint as centred on the CCTV allegation said to have occurred on 13 September 2018, and noted that the claimant had raised a grievance about those matters on 28 January 2019 and knew the outcome by 18 February 2019. It accepted the respondent's case that the complaint was substantially out of time, that there was no explanation for the delay in bringing a tribunal claim until 20 July 2020, and that the respondent would be prejudiced by having to deal with events from 2018 at that distance in time.
The tribunal also dealt with four later sex discrimination matters raised only in response to the request for particulars on 8 January 2021: an alleged sexist comment by Mr Bean on 8 August 2018, being blocked from a course in September 2018, being blocked from a similar course in October 2018, and not being installed as data manager in February 2020. It held that these were new claims not in the ET1, that there was no basis to allow amendment or to extend time, and that two of them appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success.
On disability, the tribunal noted that the ET1 only ticked the disability box and did not formulate a disability discrimination claim in the accompanying text. The claimant later relied on an email of 6 February 2020 referring to her as 'mentally unstable' and saying she was not suited to work with the team, but the tribunal found that the proposed disability discrimination or harassment claim was also out of time. It recorded that the claimant had the relevant material by 24 July 2020, referred to the email in October 2020, and only formulated the claim on 8 January 2021, without an explanation for the delay. It also said that allowing the claim would create prejudice and would effectively bring in the factual content of other claims the tribunal had ruled it should not hear.
The judgment ended by holding that there was no jurisdiction to entertain the discrimination claims. It also added the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint to the judgment because the claimant lacked two years' qualifying service for a section 98(4) unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held there was no jurisdiction to entertain the sex discrimination claims. It found the main CCTV allegation from 13 September 2018 was substantially out of time, that there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay after the grievance outcome in February 2019, and that the later-added sex discrimination matters were new claims for which amendment and/or extension of time should not be allowed. The tribunal also said two of the later-added allegations appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The ET1 ticked disability discrimination but did not plead a formulated disability discrimination claim in the detailed text. The tribunal treated the proposed claim based on the email of 6 February 2020 as out of time, noted that the claimant had the relevant material by 24 July 2020 but did not plead the claim until 8 January 2021, and refused amendment/extension of time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal added the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint to the judgment because the claimant lacked two years' qualifying service for a section 98(4) ERA claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- just and equitable extension of time
- no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 37
- Rule 39
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
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.