Case 2408890/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Sam v Department for Work and Pensions — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408890/2021
- Decision date
- 17 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Sam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered the respondent's application to strike out claims (a) to (ww) in the agreed List of Issues. It found that, except for claim (ss), those claims had been presented out of time and there was no reasonable prospect of the Tribunal finding it just and equitable to extend time. Those claims were struck out under rule 37(1)(a).
Claim (ss) was treated differently. The Tribunal found that it had reasonable prospects of success and should not be struck out, but clarified that it was not finally deciding whether an extension of time should be granted for that claim because that issue was not within the listed purpose of the hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the respondent's remaining applications, including applications concerning race discrimination claims not already dealt with and allegation (aaa), had not been determined because time did not permit it. Those applications were listed for a further preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claims (a) to (ww) in the agreed List of Issues, except claim (ss), were found to have been presented out of time and struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The extracted judgment does not identify each underlying cause of action or protected characteristic. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim (ss) was not struck out and was permitted to proceed. The Tribunal did not finally determine whether time should be extended for that claim. The judgment refers to discriminatory conduct and s.109(4) Equality Act 2010, but the protected characteristic for claim (ss) is not clear from the extracted text. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- just and equitable extension of time
- s.109(4) Equality Act 2010
- deposit order
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.