Case 2407272/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Ms S Conway v Carnegie Theatre Trust — 2022

Case reference: 2407272/2021
Decision date: 31 May 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms S Conway

Respondent

Carnegie Theatre Trust

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing in public via CVP in Manchester on 23-25 May 2022, the tribunal considered limitation and strike-out issues in Ms S Conway's claims against Carnegie Theatre Trust. The claimant's equal pay complaints were presented in time, but they were struck out because the tribunal found they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The tribunal held that the claimant's sex discrimination complaints, other than the complaints about her September 2020 grievance and her December 2020 redundancy, were not presented in time. It was not just and equitable to extend time for those complaints, so they were dismissed.

The sex discrimination complaints about the September 2020 grievance and the December 2020 redundancy were found to have been presented in time. Those complaints were allowed to proceed to a final hearing listed for 24-26 October 2022, subject to separate case management orders. No monetary award was made at this stage.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Equal pay	The claimant's equal pay complaints were presented in time, but the tribunal struck them out because they had no reasonable prospect of success.	Struck out	—	—
Sex discrimination	Most sex discrimination complaints were found to be out of time and dismissed because it was not just and equitable to extend time. The complaints about the claimant's September 2020 grievance and December 2020 redundancy were in time and were allowed to proceed to a final hearing.	Other	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.