Case 2415341/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms N Laing - Solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415341/2020
- Decision date
- 23 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge A M Buchanan in Manchester on 16 July 2021. The claimant, Mr Joseph Essey, appeared in person and the respondent, MediaCo Limited, was represented by Ms N Laing, solicitor.
The tribunal decided that all complaints advanced by the claimant of direct race discrimination were brought after the end of the three-month period starting with the date of the act complained of, as set out in section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. It also found that all of those complaints were brought after the end of any further period that would be just and equitable under section 123(1)(b).
On that basis, the tribunal held that all the direct race discrimination complaints were out of time and dismissed them. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | All complaints of direct race discrimination were found to have been presented outside the three-month time limit in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and also outside the period the tribunal considered just and equitable under section 123(1)(b). | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension
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.