Case 2408733/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Waters v Abbingdon Global Limited Steven Hartley Sheung Hoi Wen — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408733/2023
- Decision date
- 1 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Waters
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's complaints. It found that the public interest disclosure detriment claim, the public interest disclosure dismissal claim, and the unauthorised deduction from wages complaint were all brought out of time. For those claims, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction because it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought them earlier.
The tribunal also dismissed the sex discrimination complaints, which comprised harassment and direct sex discrimination. It held that those claims were brought out of time and that it would not extend time on just and equitable grounds.
No remedy was awarded because every complaint in the claim was dismissed. The judgment records that all complaints in the claim came to an end.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal dismissed the public interest disclosure detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996 because it had no jurisdiction; the complaint was brought out of time when it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal dismissed the public interest disclosure dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 because it had no jurisdiction; the complaint was brought out of time when it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unauthorised deduction from wages complaint under section 23 ERA 1996 was dismissed because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction; it was brought out of time when it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The sex discrimination harassment complaint under section 26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed because it was brought out of time and the tribunal did not extend time on just and equitable grounds. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The direct sex discrimination complaint was dismissed because it was brought out of time and the tribunal did not exercise its discretion to extend time on just and equitable grounds. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable grounds
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.