Case 2300804/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Corgitt, barrister For the v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 2300804/2018
- Decision date
- 12 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Spencer
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms J Corgitt, barrister For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 11 December 2018, Employment Judge F Spencer considered the Claimant’s race discrimination and public interest disclosure detriment complaints as pleaded in paragraphs 10 to 21 of the Further and Better Particulars sent to the Tribunal on 18 June 2018. The Tribunal held that the complaints set out in paragraphs 10 to 19 were presented out of time, and that it had no jurisdiction to hear those complaints.
The Tribunal also held that it did have jurisdiction to consider the race discrimination and public interest disclosure detriment complaints set out in paragraphs 20 and 21, and those claims were allowed to proceed to a full hearing. The case was listed for a four-day hearing of liability and remedy commencing on 28 October 2019 at Croydon Employment Tribunal.
The order recorded that disclosure had already taken place and bundles had been prepared. Witness statements were to be exchanged no later than 22 July 2019.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | At this preliminary hearing the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction over the race discrimination complaints in paragraphs 10-19 of the Further and Better Particulars because they were presented out of time. It held that the race discrimination complaints in paragraphs 20 and 21 did have jurisdiction to proceed to a full hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | At this preliminary hearing the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction over the public interest disclosure detriment complaints in paragraphs 10-19 of the Further and Better Particulars because they were presented out of time. It held that the public interest disclosure detriment complaints in paragraphs 20 and 21 did have jurisdiction to proceed to a full hearing. | Other | — | — |
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.