Case 2406397/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Davies v CBRE Managed Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2406397/2020
- Decision date
- 22 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Representatives
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered time-limit jurisdiction issues. It held that at least one complaint of direct sex discrimination and harassment could proceed because, although presented after the statutory time limit, it was just and equitable to extend time from the final alleged act until presentation of the claim.
The tribunal did not decide whether it had jurisdiction over any earlier alleged acts of discrimination or harassment, leaving that issue for the final hearing. It held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint of unfair constructive dismissal because it was out of time and it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it before the time limit expired.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment only. The tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider at least one complaint of direct sex discrimination because it was just and equitable to extend time from the final alleged act; merits were not determined and jurisdiction over earlier alleged acts was left to the final hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary hearing judgment only. The tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider at least one harassment complaint because it was just and equitable to extend time from the final alleged act; merits were not determined and jurisdiction over earlier alleged acts was left to the final hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a complaint of unfair constructive dismissal. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it before the time limit expired; the judgment did not use the words dismissed or struck out. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable
- reasonably practicable
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.