Case 2407219/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Axon v Mitchell NW Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2407219/2021
- Decision date
- 28 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I Axon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ross, sitting alone, dealt with preliminary issues only. The tribunal refused permission to amend the claim to add the July 2020 allegation that the claimant had been told to return to work from furlough as an act of direct or indirect pregnancy/maternity discrimination under section 18 Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claimant's other allegations in the Schedule of Allegations because it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. That ruling allowed those allegations to proceed, but the judgment did not determine their merits.
No monetary remedy was awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal refused permission to amend to add the July 2020 allegation that the claimant was told to return from furlough; the merits of that allegation were not determined. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Other | The tribunal held it was just and equitable under section 123 Equality Act 2010 to extend time so it had jurisdiction to hear the remaining allegations in the Schedule of Allegations; those underlying allegations were not decided. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 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.
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.