Case 2405082/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Ditchfield v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2405082/2019
- Decision date
- 19 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Ditchfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered limitation and jurisdiction issues at a hearing before Employment Judge Phil Allen sitting alone. It found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint because it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented that complaint within three months of the effective date of termination.
The Tribunal also considered the claimant's complaints of sex discrimination, sex harassment, and sexual orientation harassment. It found that it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010, so those complaints were allowed to proceed to a hearing.
No remedy was awarded in this judgment, and the discrimination and harassment complaints were not finally determined.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the unfair dismissal complaint within the primary limitation period, so it had no jurisdiction under section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The Tribunal extended time under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010; the claim was allowed to proceed to hearing and was not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The Tribunal extended time under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010; the claim was allowed to proceed to hearing and was not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The Tribunal extended time under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010; the claim was allowed to proceed to hearing and was not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- reasonably practicable
- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- just and equitable
- section 123(1)(b) 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.