Case 2409698/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H. Richards v Property Legal (Manchester) Ltd. t/a PLS Solicitors — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409698/2023
- Decision date
- 10 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H. Richards
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary issue hearing on 3 October 2024 before Judge Callan, the tribunal considered the claimant's pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims against Property Legal (Manchester) Ltd. t/a PLS Solicitors. The claims identified in paragraph 7 i to iv of the Case Management Orders were brought under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 and were the subject of the timeliness ruling only.
The tribunal dismissed those claims because they had been presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The judgment records that this decision was limited to the preliminary issue and did not determine the substance of the allegations. The tribunal also recorded that the remaining claims in paragraph 7 v to ix would proceed to the full hearing listed for 21 to 25 October 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims set out at paragraph 7 i to iv of the Case Management Orders because they were presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The remaining claims at paragraph 7 v to ix were not determined on this preliminary issue and were listed to proceed to the full hearing. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable to extend time
- section 18 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.