Case 2219112/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. J. Fawcett v Charles Lyndon Ltd. Hearing: Public Preliminary Hearing — 2024
- Case reference
- 2219112/2024
- Decision date
- 17 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. J. Fawcett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this public preliminary hearing, the tribunal dealt with strike-out and time-limit issues arising from Ms Fawcett's ET1. The Respondent was a London solicitors firm, and the Claimant had been engaged on a six-month intern contract from 13 March 2023. The tribunal accepted the Claimant's account that she was told on 17 August 2023 that she would be on gardening leave until the contract expired, and found that her employment ended on 12 September 2023 rather than on 17 August 2023. The ET1 was presented on 26 March 2024 after ACAS contact on 9 March 2024 and an Early Conciliation certificate on 13 March 2024.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the Equality Act complaints were out of time. It found there was no continuing act beyond 12 September 2023 and that early conciliation did not revive a time limit that had already expired. The tribunal refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds, noting in particular that the Claimant knew the tribunal time limits and the kinds of claims available from her LPC and employment law study, that she was an eyewitness to the events she complained of, that there was no medical evidence showing she was unwell or unfit during the relevant period, and that she had produced coherent post-employment documents such as nuisance logs and a January 2024 letter.
None of the discrimination claims proceeded to a final hearing. The direct sex discrimination claim, the sex-related harassment claim, and the disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments claim were struck out under Rule 37. The tribunal also recorded that the unfair constructive dismissal claim was withdrawn under Rule 52, and said it was unclear whether there was a separate constructive dismissal complaint; if so, that was also struck out as out of time and outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. No remedy was awarded and no further case management directions were needed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The ET1 described this as unfair (constructive) dismissal under the ERA 1996 and noted the Claimant lacked two years' service; the judgment records that the claim was withdrawn under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal struck out this complaint under Rule 37 as out of time and not one for which it was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present in time. At para. 39 the tribunal said it was unclear whether this was separate from the withdrawn unfair constructive dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination under ss.13 and 39(2)(c)-(d) EQA 2010; struck out because it was not presented in time and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex / sexual harassment under ss.26 and 40(1)(a) EQA 2010; struck out on the same time-limit grounds. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Disability discrimination, including reasonable adjustments, under ss.13, 15, 19, 20-21 and 26 and ss.39-40 EQA 2010; struck out as out of time. The tribunal was content to assume ASD for the strike-out application, but noted there was no medical evidence that the Claimant had ASD. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Rule 37 strike-out
- Rule 52 withdrawal
- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.140B Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Concentrix CVG Intelligent Contact Ltd v Obi
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
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.