Case 2207132/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Maloney v The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207132/2021
- Decision date
- 10 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Maloney
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Gordon Walker, sitting alone at London Central on 5 October 2022, dismissed all three claims brought by Ms A Maloney against the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The judgment records that the tribunal did not determine the merits of any claim because each was out of time and no extension of time was available on the facts found.
The unfair dismissal claim under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed because it was presented after the section 111(2)(a) time limit. The tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within time, so section 111(2)(b) did not apply to extend the limit.
The unauthorised deductions from wages claim under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 was also dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal found the claim was presented after the section 23(2)-(3) limit and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time, so section 23(4) did not extend time.
The sex discrimination claim under section 39 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed on the same basis. The tribunal found it was presented after the section 123(1)(a) time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b). No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented after the section 111(2)(a) ERA 1996 time limit and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so section 111(2)(b) did not extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented after the section 23(2)-(3) ERA 1996 time limit and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so section 23(4) did not extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented after the section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b). | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- s.23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
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.