Case 2402844/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Dr R Smith v The Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402844/2022
- Decision date
- 3 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr R Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr R Smith, who described herself as black, worked for The Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts as a Visiting Lecturer from 9 September 2019 to 30 April 2021. She raised concerns from November 2019 and presented a formal grievance on 10 December 2020. An external investigator, Ms Kerstie Skeaping of Hill Dickinson LLP, reported on 23 June 2021; a redacted version was sent on 12 July 2021. The judgment records that Ms Skeaping found the respondent to be 'institutionally racist' and upheld many grievance allegations, including race and sex discrimination.
The preliminary hearing concerned amendment, strike out and time limits in relation to the complaint. The claimant withdrew PTV8, PTV10 and PTV13. The respondent took no issue with PTV7, PTV11 and PTV12. The judge held that PTV1, PTV2, PTV3, PTV4, PTV5, PTV6 and PTV9 were not new factual allegations but a relabelling of material already in the grounds of complaint, so no formal amendment was required. The respondent's applications to strike out post-14 January 2021 conduct and for a deposit order were refused.
On limitation, the judge found that allegations before 17 November 2021 were prima facie out of time, but extended time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 back to 10 December 2020. The claimant was accepted as a credible witness on why she waited for the grievance process to conclude, and the judge balanced the prejudice to both sides against depriving her of a hearing on allegations that Ms Skeaping had largely found well founded. The earlier allegations were treated as part of a continuing series ending on 14 January 2021, and the post-grievance victimisation allegations were also treated as a continuing series ending within time. The judgment is procedural only and leaves the merits of the sex, race, harassment and victimisation claims to the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Withdrawn at the preliminary hearing; no further determination was made on this complaint. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal extended time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 so the complaint could proceed, but did not determine the merits. | Other | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal extended time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 so the complaint could proceed, but did not determine the merits. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal extended time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 so the complaint could proceed, but did not determine the merits. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal extended time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 so the complaint could proceed, but did not determine the merits. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal allowed PTV1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12 to remain in issue, accepted PTV1/6, PTV2-5 and PTV9 as relabelling rather than new claims, and refused strike out and deposit order applications; PTV8, PTV10 and PTV13 were withdrawn. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Apelogun-Gabriels v Lambeth London Borough Council
- Littlewoods Organisation plc v Traynor
- Barclays Bank v Kapur
- SW Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust v King
- Croke v Leeds CC
- Rule 37 strike out
- Rule 39 deposit order
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
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.