Case 2204672/2021 · Employment Tribunal
EF v British Broadcasting Corporation — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204672/2021
- Decision date
- 25 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin Appearances
- Venue
- in private
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EF
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing dealt with jurisdictional time issues and an application to amend, not the substantive merits of the claimant's allegations. The claimant alleged harassment, with the last alleged incident on 12 March 2021, and had pursued an internal grievance before presenting her claim on 18 August 2021.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant lacked experience of employment law matters, had initially taken HR instructions about confidentiality literally, and was stressed and dealing with matters slowly. It also found that the respondent was not significantly prejudiced by the passage of time because the substance of the claim had been investigated internally while matters were fresh. Time was extended for the 12 March 2021 harassment allegation, while the question whether earlier allegations were part of a continuing act was reserved to the full tribunal.
The tribunal refused the proposed amendment to add an indirect sex discrimination claim about the grievance investigator's alleged practice of preferring the alleged perpetrator's account. It found that the proposed amendment introduced a different type of claim, was out of time, would likely require wider factual enquiry, and would complicate and lengthen the hearing. The tribunal made no comment on the merits of the existing claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal extended time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 for the allegation of harassment on 12 March 2021. The merits were not determined, and whether earlier allegations formed part of a continuing act was left to the full tribunal. | Other | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claimant's application to amend to add an indirect sex discrimination claim under section 19 Equality Act 2010 was refused. This was a refusal of permission to amend, not a merits determination of the proposed claim. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Presidential Guidance on General Case Management 2018, Guidance Note 1
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
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.