Case 2300377/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Liu v Crown Prosecution Service — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300377/2019
- Decision date
- 27 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Liu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of direct race discrimination. He alleged discriminatory treatment during his employment, discriminatory dismissal, creation of an active dismissal record, unsuccessful applications for CPS roles in 2018, and provision of a reference stating that he had been dismissed. At the preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered whether the complaints before 29 August 2018 were in time because the claimant contacted ACAS on 28 November 2018.
The Tribunal found no prima facie case that the employment-related allegations, the dismissal, or the first two unsuccessful CPS applications formed part of a continuing act extending beyond 29 August 2018. It held that the dismissal record might have had continuing consequences, but that did not make the dismissal or later recruitment decisions part of one continuing act.
The Tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds. It found the earlier complaints were substantially out of time, that the claimant had not given a good reason for the delay, and that the delay caused prejudice to the respondent in defending the claim. The out-of-time complaints were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaints relating to matters before 29 August 2018, including employment, dismissal, the alleged dismissal record, and the Thames & Chiltern and Wessex re-employment applications in July 2018, were dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. The claimant confirmed he did not pursue harassment. The merits of any in-time allegations were not determined in this judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Caterham School Limited v Rose UKEAT/0149/19
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2003] IRLR 96
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 1548
- Southwark London Borough v Alfolabi [2003] IRLR 220
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.