Case 2402870/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v The Nail and Beauty Zone Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402870/2021
- Decision date
- 8 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the CVP hearing on 22 October 2021, Employment Judge Cookson considered whether the claimant's claim form had been presented in time. The tribunal found that it was not submitted within 3 months of the alleged act of discrimination, but it was submitted within a further period that the tribunal found to be just and equitable under s.123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 and regulation 8 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, so the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the claims.
The tribunal extended time to 13 April 2021. This judgment is an updated written record made in light of an order under Rule 50(3)(b); it records that written reasons had been requested and that reasons would otherwise not be provided unless a further request was made. The extract contains no substantive liability findings and no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The extracted text does not set out the underlying facts, but the tribunal referred to an alleged act of discrimination and extended time under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 so it could consider the claim. | Other | Sex | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | The tribunal also relied on regulation 8 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 when extending time; no substantive merits decision appears in the extract. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- regulation 8 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
- just and equitable
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.