Case 2205583/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person, assisted by Ms N Lee v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2205583/2022
- Decision date
- 1 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person, assisted by Ms N Lee
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in London Central on 1 November 2022, Employment Judge Glennie held that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim because it had been presented out of time. The judgment therefore struck out the claim. The claimant appeared in person, assisted by Ms N Lee, and the respondent was represented by Mr C Kelly (Counsel).
The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision. The judgment does not record any merits findings or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary-hearing strike-out only. The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time; the judgment does not separate out any merits determination for the race discrimination claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary-hearing strike-out only. The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time; the judgment does not contain a merits finding on unfair dismissal. | Struck out | — | — |
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.