Case 2213428/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2213428/2023
- Decision date
- 19 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms J Marshall
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's detriment complaints under section 47C Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 were presented out of time. It found it was reasonably practicable to have presented them in time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear them and struck them out. The judgment added that, if jurisdiction had existed, those complaints would all have failed.
The claimant's pregnancy/maternity discrimination complaints under the Equality Act 2010 were also out of time. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, so those complaints were struck out. It again stated that those complaints would all have failed if the tribunal had had jurisdiction.
On race discrimination, the claimant withdrew the direct race discrimination complaint identified as Detriment 8 during the hearing and the judgment records that it was dismissed. The remaining direct race discrimination complaints were out of time, the tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis, and those complaints were struck out; the judgment said they would all have failed in any event.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint under section 47C Employment Rights Act 1996; presented out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it and struck it out. The judgment added that it would have failed if heard. | Struck out | — | — |
| Parental leave | Complaint under regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999; presented out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it and struck it out. The judgment added that it would have failed if heard. | Struck out | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Pregnancy/maternity discrimination complaints under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found they were presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it struck them out. The judgment added that they would all have failed if heard. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint identified as Detriment 8. The claimant withdrew it during the hearing and the judgment records that it was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Remaining direct race discrimination complaints under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found they were presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it struck them out. The judgment added that they would all have failed if heard. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable to have presented them in time
- just and equitable to extend time
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.