Case 2300588/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K. Caesar v Kings College Hospital NHS Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300588/2019
- Decision date
- 1 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr W. Dixon, Ms H. Bharadia
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K. Caesar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in London South on 23, 24, 25, 30 and 31 May and 1 June 2022, before Employment Judge T.R. Smith with Mr W. Dixon and Ms H. Bharadia, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints of direct age discrimination and harassment related to age were dismissed on withdrawal. Those claims therefore did not proceed to a substantive determination on their merits.
The tribunal then considered the claimant's complaints of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race and victimisation. It held that those complaints were not presented within the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, as extended by section 140B, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. In the alternative, the tribunal held that those complaints were not well founded and were dismissed.
No monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's direct age discrimination complaint was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaint of harassment related to age was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the complaint was not presented within the time limit in section 123 Equality Act 2010, as extended by section 140B, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time; it also said that, in the alternative, the complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held that the harassment related to race complaint was not presented within the time limit in section 123 Equality Act 2010, as extended by section 140B, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time; it also said that, in the alternative, the complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held that the victimisation complaint was not presented within the time limit in section 123 Equality Act 2010, as extended by section 140B, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time; it also said that, in the alternative, the complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- section 140B Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
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.