Case 2302181/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Jeffrey v South West London & St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302181/2019
- Decision date
- 20 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Jeffrey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs G Jeffrey presented her claim form on 30 May 2019 after ACAS early conciliation on 30 April 2019. At this preliminary hearing, Employment Judge S Moore sat alone and dealt with the Respondent's application to strike out parts of the claim on time limit and jurisdiction grounds. The Judge refused Mr Kwame's request for an adjournment so the Claimant could take legal advice, holding that she had had ample notice that strike-out would be argued.
The direct sex and age discrimination allegations in claims (1)-(3) were struck out. The Tribunal held that, even if the matters were treated as a continuing act under section 123(3)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, they were at least six months out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The only explanation advanced for the delay was ill-health said to arise when the Claimant was required to move to the Lower Ground Floor, but there was no evidence that she was too unwell to investigate her rights and bring a claim. The Judge also noted that the heart of this part of the case was a demotion told to the Claimant in February 2017, and that the Respondent would be prejudiced by having to justify decisions taken years earlier.
The direct race discrimination claims in claims (5)-(6) were also struck out. The Tribunal found that they were about four months out of time and was not satisfied that time should be extended on a just and equitable basis. The Judge again recorded that there was no evidence the Claimant had been so unwell that she could not have brought proceedings, and added that the Claimant had not explained how the allegation that her personnel file was left unsecured amounted to direct race discrimination. The disability reasonable adjustments claim, claim (8), was not struck out. The Claimant said that between April 2018 and May 2019 she repeatedly asked to be moved from the Lower Ground Floor and/or to be given an individual or shared room, and the Tribunal said it would be a matter for evidence and argument whether any failure was a one-off act or a continuing act and whether it was out of time.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Grouped with the direct age discrimination allegations in claims (1)-(3). The tribunal struck it out as out of time and held there was no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | Grouped with the direct sex discrimination allegations in claims (1)-(3). The tribunal struck it out as out of time and held there was no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Claims (5)-(6). The tribunal struck it out as out of time, found no basis to extend time on a just and equitable basis, and said the claim appeared fundamentally weak. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim (8) failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal declined to strike it out and left open, for evidence and argument at the final hearing, whether the alleged failure was a one-off act or a continuing act and whether it was out of time. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010 continuing act
- just and equitable to extend time
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.