Case 2300831/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Nolan v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300831/2022
- Decision date
- 21 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Poynton. In
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Nolan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a preliminary hearing, the respondent was ordered to file an amended response by 31 March 2023. The tribunal granted the respondent's first two applications to extend time, to 5 May 2023 and then to 31 May 2023, noting that the claimant did not object to those extensions.
The respondent made a third application after business hours on 31 May 2023, seeking a further extension to 14 June 2023. The tribunal refused that application, finding that it was not made in good time and noting that it was the third such application. The amended response filed on 5 June 2023 was therefore out of time and was rejected under Rule 18(1).
Because the response had been rejected and no response had been filed, the tribunal determined liability under Rule 21. The claims for discrimination based on sex, CP and gender reassignment, and the claim for flexible working detriment, succeeded on liability. The tribunal did not determine remedy and directed that a remedy hearing would be required.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal stated that the claim for discrimination based on sex succeeded on liability under Rule 21 after the response was rejected. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | The judgment refers to discrimination based on "CP". This has been treated as civil partnership in light of the discrimination context, but the abbreviation is not expanded in the extracted text. | Upheld | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
| Gender reassignment discrimination | The tribunal stated that the claim for discrimination based on gender reassignment succeeded on liability under Rule 21 after the response was rejected. | Upheld | Gender reassignment | — |
| Flexible working | The tribunal stated that the flexible working detriment claim succeeded on liability under Rule 21 after the response was rejected. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 21
- Rule 18(1)
- Rule 16
- Rule 20
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.