Case 2300614/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Eastman-Neequaye v Monsoon Stores Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300614/2022
- Decision date
- 9 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker Representatives
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T Eastman-Neequaye
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs T Eastman-Neequaye brought claims against Monsoon Stores Limited for maternity discrimination, unpaid wages, and holiday pay. The tribunal recorded that the claims had been presented out of time.
For the maternity discrimination claim, the tribunal decided that it was not just and equitable to allow the claim to be brought late under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. That claim was therefore dismissed.
For the unpaid wages claim, the tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought within the time limit in section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That claim was also dismissed.
The claimant withdrew the holiday pay claim during the proceedings. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found the claim was presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to allow it to proceed under s123 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim was presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been brought within the time limit in s23 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant withdrew this claim during the proceedings. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- s23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.