Case 2304178/2017 · Employment Tribunal

Ms A Stroud, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2018

Case reference: 2304178/2017
Decision date: 8 May 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge K Andrews Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Ms A Stroud, Counsel For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mrs K Rose brought claims of unfair dismissal, unpaid holiday pay, harassment, direct sex discrimination and direct age discrimination against Caterham School Ltd. The Employment Judge sat alone in London South on 8 May 2018. No written reasons were provided in the record beyond the oral judgment noted on the face of the decision.

The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal, unpaid holiday pay and harassment claims had been submitted out of time and were dismissed on that basis. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the merits of those claims.

The tribunal also found that the direct sex discrimination and direct age discrimination claims had been submitted out of time, but it was just and equitable in all the circumstances to allow them to proceed. This record does not include any further determination of those discrimination claims, so it only captures the limitation ruling and not the merits.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Dismissed because the claim was submitted out of time.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	Dismissed because the claim was submitted out of time.	Dismissed	—	—
Harassment	Dismissed because the claim was submitted out of time.	Dismissed	—	—
Sex discrimination	The direct sex discrimination claim was submitted out of time, but the tribunal allowed it to proceed as it was just and equitable in all the circumstances.	Other	Sex	—
Age discrimination	The direct age discrimination claim was submitted out of time, but the tribunal allowed it to proceed as it was just and equitable in all the circumstances.	Other	Age	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.