Case 2302878/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Watts v Richmond and Hillcroft Adult Community College — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302878/2023
- Decision date
- 10 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mensah Appearances
- Venue
- by video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Watts
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 10 January 2024, Employment Judge Mensah considered whether Ms Watts's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims, presented on 19 June 2023, were in time. Ms Watts said she had been unwell and mentally drained, did not know the time limits, said the pandemic made it difficult to get support, and said she had difficulty obtaining legal assistance. The respondent argued that the claims were late and should not proceed.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the claim was out of time because the effective date of termination was 31 March 2022 and the claim was not brought until 19 June 2023. It did not accept that stress, lack of medical evidence, inability to obtain medical appointments, or the pandemic prevented a timely claim. The tribunal noted that Ms Watts had continued some part-time work, had not been signed off as unfit for work, and had not shown that she could not have used internet resources, ACAS or Citizens Advice during the limitation period.
The tribunal applied the same findings to the Equality Act claims. It said the discrimination claims remained unparticularised, treated 31 March 2022 as the last possible date, and held that they were out of time by nearly a year. Applying the statutory discretion, including the approach in Robertson and Miller, it decided it was not just and equitable to extend time, taking into account the absence of a proven hindrance to earlier presentation and the forensic prejudice to the respondent. No remedy was awarded because the claims did not proceed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Determined at a preliminary hearing on limitation. The tribunal found the claim was presented on 19.06.2023, about one year and three months after the effective date of termination on 31.03.2022, and that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Determined on the same limitation analysis as the unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal treated 31.03.2022 as the last possible act date, found the claim was out of time, and refused to extend time under the Equality Act discretion. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Determined on the same limitation analysis as the unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal also noted that the discrimination claims were unparticularised and held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111(2)(b) ERA
- not reasonably practicable
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Miller and ors v Ministry of Justice and ors
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd
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.