Case 2402033/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Becs v Iron Mountain (UK) Services Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402033/2019
- Decision date
- 20 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Liverpool on 27 August 2019, Employment Judge Robinson, sitting alone, ruled on what claims the claimant could bring. The tribunal recorded that the claims to be dealt with at the July 2020 hearing were those set out in Schedule 1 of Employment Judge Horne's minute dated 29 May 2019, together with the harassment claims in the email attachment dated 19 June 2019, specifically the allegations in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 1.25 and 1.26, 2 and 3.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal held that the harassment allegations in the 19 June 2019 email attachment, namely paragraphs 1.1 to 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 1.25 and 1.26, 2 and 3, were among the claims to be dealt with at the July 2020 hearing. The judgment text provided does not identify the protected characteristic for those allegations. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The proposed amendment in Schedule 2 of Employment Judge Horne's minute dated 29 May 2019 was refused because it had been made out of time and it was not, in the circumstances, just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- out of time
- 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.