Case 2405858/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P O’Brien v Lancashire County Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 2405858/2023
- Decision date
- 19 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P O’Brien
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claims for sex discrimination and harassment related to sex. It found that those claims had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The respondent's application to strike out the unfair dismissal claim under rules 37(1)(b), (c) and (d) did not succeed, so the unfair dismissal claim was not struck out. The respondent's application for an order requiring the claimant to pay its costs from the hearings of 8 December 2023 and 21 May 2024 also did not succeed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed because the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records only that the respondent's strike-out application under rules 37(1)(b), (c) and (d) did not succeed and the unfair dismissal claim was not struck out; the merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable to extend the time limit
- rules 37(1)(b), (c) and (d)
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.