Case 2216329/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Olivia Hume v SCA Investments Limited (T/a Gousto) PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216329/2023
- Decision date
- 16 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Olivia Hume
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered the claimant's claims for direct sex discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 and victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010. It found that those claims had been presented outside the time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear them and they were struck out.
The Tribunal also refused the claimant's application to amend the claim to add race discrimination and/or harassment related to race. In the alternative, the judgment stated that if the refusal to permit the amendments was wrong, those claims were also out of time, no just and equitable extension would be granted, and they would be struck out for lack of jurisdiction. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The claim for direct discrimination on the grounds of sex under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was presented outside the time limit; the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and struck it out for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010 was presented outside the time limit; the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and struck it out for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant's application to amend to include race discrimination was refused. In the alternative, the judgment stated that if that refusal was wrong, the race discrimination claim was also out of time, no just and equitable extension would be granted, and the claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | The claimant's application to amend to include harassment related to race was refused. In the alternative, the judgment stated that if that refusal was wrong, the harassment claim was also out of time, no just and equitable extension would be granted, and the claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- 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.