Case 2208216/2022 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2208216/2022
- Decision date
- 15 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that all of the claimant’s complaints were presented out of time. It was not just and equitable to extend time, so the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaints.
The claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. No substantive findings on the underlying discrimination allegations were made in this judgment, and the final hearing listed for 6, 7, 8 and 9 February 2024 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the complaint was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the complaint was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the complaint was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the complaint was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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.