Case 2304347/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Dempsey (Solicitor) For the v Mr S Connor (HR Business Partner) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304347/2022
- Decision date
- 5 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Bryant KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Dempsey (Solicitor) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary issues hearing on 5 July 2023 before Employment Judge K Bryant KC, the tribunal considered the Claimant’s race discrimination claims. It held that the claims for direct race discrimination and harassment related to race had been presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time to allow them to be heard. On that basis, the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear those claims and dismissed them.
The tribunal also recorded that the Claimant had been dismissed by the Respondent with effect from 2 December 2022. It stated that the Claimant’s unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims would proceed to a final hearing. No final determination or remedy was recorded in this judgment for those claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Claim for direct race discrimination was presented out of time; the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Claim for harassment related to race was presented out of time; the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.