Case 2217098/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms A Giscombe v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard by CVP on 4 September 2024 2024 — 2024

Case reference: 2217098/2023
Decision date: 12 September 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Nicolle Representation

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms A Giscombe

Respondent

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard by CVP on 4 September 2024 2024

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At an open preliminary hearing, the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear several discrimination claims because they were presented outside the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. This included direct race discrimination, most race-related harassment, most direct age discrimination, most direct sex discrimination, and indirect sex discrimination.

The Tribunal struck out specific remaining allegations as having no reasonable prospect of success, including the race harassment allegation about a 5 July 2023 meeting, the age and sex discrimination allegations about that meeting, unpleaded disability allegations, and disability-related matters concerning health conditions other than PTSD and related mental health conditions.

The unfair dismissal claim, and the disability discrimination claims relating to the course of conduct connected with the sickness absence procedure from 6 December 2021 and related employee redeployment process, were permitted to proceed to a full hearing.

Claims and outcomes

8 findings recorded

This 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
Race discrimination	The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction over the direct race discrimination claim because it was out of time.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	Harassment related to race was out of time except for the alleged statement at the 5 July 2023 meeting, which was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.	Dismissed	Race	—
Age discrimination	Direct age discrimination was out of time except for the 5 July 2023 medical redeployment review meeting allegation, which was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.	Dismissed	Age	—
Sex discrimination	Direct sex discrimination was out of time except for the 5 July 2023 medical redeployment meeting allegation, which was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Sex discrimination	The indirect sex discrimination claim was out of time and the Tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Disability discrimination

Legal tests applied

8 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.