Case 2300268/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Clara Alfred v MTR Corporation (Crossrail) Limited t/a MTR Elizabeth Line — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300268/2023
- Decision date
- 2 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller-Varey Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Clara Alfred
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented the ET1 on 17 January 2023. The tribunal allowed only a narrow amendment: the complaint originally labelled equal pay was re-labelled as unlawful deductions from wages, with the alleged deductions said to run from March 2021 to October 2022. Other proposed changes were refused, including the attempt to add indirect race discrimination, a broader flexible-working complaint, and a widened promotion allegation. The tribunal also recorded that age discrimination and equal pay complaints had been withdrawn at an earlier case management hearing and would be dealt with separately.
On the Equality Act complaints, the tribunal held there was no pleaded or permitted claim for discriminatory constructive dismissal. It found the original and amended pleadings did not clearly identify the dismissal itself as discriminatory, and refused to add that claim by amendment. Applying section 123 EqA 2010, the Hendricks continuing-act approach, and the Adedeji just-and-equitable approach, it held the race and sex complaints were made up of discrete incidents spread across different years, locations and people, with no prima facie continuing state of affairs.
The tribunal concluded the individual race and sex allegations were each out of time and declined to extend time. It noted that the last pleaded sex allegation was the 13 September 2022 meeting at the latest and the last pleaded race allegation was 7 February 2022, and it took account of the absence of any evidence explaining the delay, together with the potential prejudice to the respondent from historic witness evidence. It also refused the indirect race amendment as a new and weak allegation.
The ordinary constructive unfair dismissal claim and the unlawful deductions claim remained live. The tribunal ordered £300 deposits against allegations 1 to 5 of the original particulars because they had little reasonable prospect of success, applying rule 39 and the last-straw principles in Omilaju and Kaur. It also said the case could proceed before a Judge sitting alone once the deposit and case management issues were resolved.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | No discriminatory constructive dismissal claim was pleaded or allowed. The ordinary constructive unfair dismissal claim remained live, but allegations 1 to 5 of the original particulars were made subject to £300 deposits because they were assessed as having little reasonable prospect of success. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Permission was granted to replace the equal pay label with an unlawful deductions from wages claim, with the alleged deductions said to run from March 2021 to October 2022. The respondent accepted this deductions claim was in time and it may proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the direct race complaints, including harassment-style allegations, were discrete acts outside the three-month limit. It found no continuing act or just-and-equitable basis to extend time, and refused the proposed indirect race amendment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held the sex complaints, including the flexible-working allegation and sex-harassment allegations, were out of time. It found the last pleaded sex act was 13 September 2022 at the latest, rejected a continuing act, and declined to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 123 EqA 2010 time limits
- Hendricks continuing act approach
- Adedeji just and equitable approach
- Selkent amendment test
- Sakyi-Opare amendment sequencing
- Omilaju last straw principle
- Kaur last straw constructive dismissal
- rule 39 little reasonable prospect of success
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.