Case 2410497/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Keogh v Telefonica UK Limited and 4 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410497/2019
- Decision date
- 13 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Mrs K Keogh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims against the fifth respondent had already been withdrawn at an earlier case management hearing. At the hearing on 7 February 2020, the claims against the third and fourth respondents were also dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
The claims against the first and second respondents were dismissed because the Tribunal found they had been presented outside the applicable time limit. The Tribunal also found that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the claims were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider.
The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested. No remedy was awarded in the judgment.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records that the claims against the fifth respondent had been withdrawn at an earlier case management hearing, and that the claims against the third and fourth respondents were dismissed on withdrawal at this hearing. The PDF text does not set out the pleaded factual allegations; sex discrimination is identified from the listing category. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records that the claims against the first and second respondents were dismissed because they were presented outside the time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The PDF text does not set out the pleaded factual allegations; sex discrimination is identified from the listing category. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.