Case 2402550/2021 · Employment Tribunal

J Blair-McDonough v Secretary of State for Justice PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022

Case reference: 2402550/2021
Decision date: 20 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Batten REPRESENTATION
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

J Blair-McDonough

Respondent

Secretary of State for Justice PRELIMINARY HEARING

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing on 17 January 2022 in Manchester, Employment Judge Batten heard from the respondent's counsel and from the claimant. The tribunal dealt only with preliminary issues and did not decide the merits of the remaining dismissal claim.

The tribunal struck out the claimant's complaints of sex discrimination and harassment because they were presented outside the time limits in section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010. It also decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time for those complaints.

The claimant's remaining complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was allowed to proceed to a final hearing listed for 8 to 11 May 2023. The judgment records no financial award.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	Struck out because it was not presented within the time limits in section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010, and the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time.	Struck out	Sex	—
Harassment	Struck out together with the sex discrimination complaint because it was not presented within the time limits in section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010, and the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time.	Struck out	Sex	—
Constructive dismissal	The claimant's remaining complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was allowed to proceed to a hearing listed for 8 to 11 May 2023.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

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.