Case 2300013/2023 · Employment Tribunal
K van Schoor v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300013/2023
- Decision date
- 28 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
K van Schoor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered whether the claim had been presented within the applicable time limit. The judgment records that it had not been presented in time.
The Tribunal also considered whether time should be extended on the basis that it was just and equitable to do so. It decided that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit, and the claim was therefore dismissed. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, and the written judgment does not provide further reasoning on the discrimination allegations themselves.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claim was presented outside the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The written judgment does not set out details of the alleged disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the claim was presented outside the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The written judgment does not set out details of the alleged race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.