Case 2307189/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Davis v HM Land Registry Heard by video — 2022
- Case reference
- 2307189/2020
- Decision date
- 6 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Davis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs L Davis brought proceedings against HM Land Registry. On 6 May 2022, Employment Judge Corrigan, sitting alone and hearing the case by video, held that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim because it had been submitted out of time.
The tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The claim was therefore dismissed, and the extracted judgment records no findings on the substantive merits or any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The extracted judgment text only records that the claim was submitted out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The GOV.UK listing for this case also identifies disability discrimination and race discrimination, but the text does not separate the grounds or reach the merits. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The extracted judgment text only records that the claim was submitted out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The GOV.UK listing for this case also identifies disability discrimination and race discrimination, but the text does not separate the grounds or reach the merits. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.
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.