Case 2418598/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v A and B — 2022
- Case reference
- 2418598/2020
- Decision date
- 21 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
- Panel members
- Mr M Gelling, Ms C Doyle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Shotter and lay members Mr M Gelling and Ms C Doyle, held that the claimant’s discrimination claims were not well-founded and dismissed them. The judgment does not record any monetary award.
It also found that the discrimination complaints set out in paragraph 4(a) to (e) were presented after the end of the relevant time limit. The Tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time.
As a result, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider those complaints and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The Tribunal found the discrimination claims were not well-founded and dismissed them. It also held that the discrimination complaints identified in paragraph 4(a) to (e) were presented after the relevant time limit, that it was not just and equitable to extend time, and therefore it had no jurisdiction to consider those complaints. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.123 EqA 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
- s.70 EqA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.