Case 2404416/2024 · Employment Tribunal
C Dixey Respondent Berlitz Manchester PRELIMINARY HEARING HELD AT: Manchester (by video platform) v M Harrington, director — 2025
- Case reference
- 2404416/2024
- Decision date
- 8 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C Dixey Respondent Berlitz Manchester PRELIMINARY HEARING HELD AT: Manchester (by video platform)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Batten sitting alone at Manchester by video platform on 5 June 2025. The claimant, C Dixey, was represented in person and the respondent was represented by M Harrington, director.
The only claim identified in the judgment was disability discrimination. The Tribunal held that the claim was not presented within the time limit prescribed by section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010. It also held that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
On that basis, the disability discrimination claim was dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal rules.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the claim was not presented within the time limit in section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010 and the Tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of 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.