Case 2408691/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Christeen Abbie Wood v Cancer Research UK — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408691/2023
- Decision date
- 1 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Christeen Abbie Wood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Wood brought claims of direct race discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 against Cancer Research UK. Judge Cowx, sitting alone at Carlisle on 18 June 2024, recorded that both claims were presented out of time on 11 August 2023.
The tribunal found that the claims were also not presented within such further period as it considered just and equitable. On that basis, it held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims and struck them out. No liability findings on the substance of either claim were made.
The judgment was given orally at the hearing, with the written record sent to the parties on 1 July 2024. The record also states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's note.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal recorded a claim of direct discrimination on grounds of race contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010. It found the claim was presented out of time on 11 August 2023 and not within such further period as the tribunal thought just and equitable, so it had no jurisdiction and struck the claim out. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal recorded a claim of victimisation contrary to section 27 Equality Act 2010. It found the claim was presented out of time on 11 August 2023 and not within such further period as the tribunal thought just and equitable, so it had no jurisdiction and struck the claim out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.