Case 2301987/2021 · Employment Tribunal
No appearance or v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301987/2021
- Decision date
- 3 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott KC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
1 namedClaimant
No appearance or
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on 28 September 2022 at which the claimant did not attend. The tribunal addressed time limits only. It found that the claim for unpaid wages, said to concern September and October 2019, had been presented outside the primary time limit in section 23(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that it had been reasonably practicable for that claim to have been presented in time. The unpaid wages claim was therefore struck out.
The tribunal also dealt with the claimant's sex and sexual orientation discrimination claims. It recorded that the claimant was last at work on 25 June 2020, and that any acts of discrimination had to have occurred on or before that date or were not sufficiently specified thereafter. No explanation was provided for why the discrimination claims were presented out of time. Applying the just and equitable discretion under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, and noting the prejudice to the respondent in defending an unspecified and out-of-time claim, the tribunal concluded that it was not proportionate to extend time. Those discrimination claims were also struck out.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the unpaid wages claim, said to relate to September/October 2019, was presented outside the primary time limit in section 23(2) ERA 1996 and that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held the sex discrimination claim was presented outside the primary time limit in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The tribunal held the sexual orientation discrimination claim was presented outside the primary time limit in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- not reasonably practicable
- s.23(2) ERA 1996
- s.23(4) ERA 1996
- just and equitable
- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- s.140B Equality Act 2010
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.