Case 2301341/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Angela Wickham v London Borough of Merton — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301341/2021
- Decision date
- 11 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Angela Wickham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAngela Wickham presented her claim form on 9 April 2021 and said the case was one of race discrimination. The tribunal recorded that ACAS early conciliation had started on 7 April 2021 and that the ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate was issued on 12 April 2021, after the claim was presented. It also noted that the original claim form had been rejected on 10 May 2021 for lack of an ACAS EC certificate number and was later accepted on reconsideration on 20 May 2021.
At the open preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Khalil held that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim because no ACAS Early Conciliation certificate had been issued before the claim was presented. The judgment applied s.18(8) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and Rule 12(1)(a) and (2) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals Regulations 2013. The judge found that no exemption under s.18(7) applied. No remedy was awarded because the claim could not proceed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the race discrimination claim because the claim form was presented on 9 April 2021 before an ACAS Early Conciliation certificate had been issued. It relied on s.18(8) Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and Rule 12(1)(a) and (2) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals Regulations 2013. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.18 Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Rule 12(1)(a) and (2) Schedule 1 Employment Tribunals Regulations 2013
- s.18(7) ETA 1996
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.