Case 2411409/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Audra Bickerdyke v Secretary of State for Justice PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411409/2021
- Decision date
- 26 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Audra Bickerdyke
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 18 October 2022, Judge Brian Doyle, sitting alone, held that Miss Bickerdyke's two complaints of direct sex discrimination, said to arise from incidents in September 2019 and January/February 2020, were not presented within the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so those complaints were dismissed.
The judgment records that the remaining parts of the claim are to proceed to a final hearing on 22-25 January 2024, subject to the case management orders already issued. No remedy was determined in this decision because the hearing addressed only the timeliness of the sex discrimination complaints.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination complaint arising from alleged incidents in September 2019; held not to have been presented within time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and dismissed because it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination complaint arising from alleged incidents in January/February 2020; held not to have been presented within time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and dismissed because it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of 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.