Case 2401858/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Shakira Walker-Comrie v Whalley Range Tennis & Cricket Club & Others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401858/2023
- Decision date
- 2 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Shakira Walker-Comrie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Walker-Comrie brought claims for unlawful deductions from wages and non-payment of holiday pay, together with claims of direct and indirect sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation against Whalley Range Tennis & Cricket Club & Others. The case was heard at Manchester by CVP on 21 December 2023 before Judge Cowx sitting alone, with written judgment sent to the parties on 2 January 2024.
The tribunal held that the unlawful deductions and holiday pay claims were presented out of time on 22 January 2023. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring those claims in time, but she did not do so. On that basis the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear those claims and struck them out.
The tribunal made the same jurisdictional finding in relation to the sex discrimination claims, including direct and indirect discrimination, and the claims of harassment and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010. It found that those claims were also presented out of time on 22 January 2023 and were not presented within such other period as the tribunal thought just and equitable. Those claims were therefore also struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
No substantive liability findings or remedy awards were made because all claims were struck out on limitation/jurisdiction grounds at the preliminary stage.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the claim in time and that she did not do so, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the claim in time and that she did not do so, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Covers the claimant's claims of direct and indirect sex discrimination. The tribunal found the claims were presented out of time and were not brought within such period as the tribunal thought just and equitable, so it had no jurisdiction. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Presented out of time; the tribunal found the claim was not brought within such period as the tribunal thought just and equitable, so it had no jurisdiction. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Presented out of time; the tribunal found the claim was not brought within such period as the tribunal thought just and equitable, so it had no jurisdiction. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable test
- just and equitable test
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.