Case 2500237/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D. Raife v The Adolescent and Children’s Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500237/2024
- Decision date
- 6 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- Newcastle Civil and Family Courts and Tribunal Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D. Raife
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss D. Raife’s unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal found that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so no extension was allowed.
The tribunal also dismissed the race discrimination claim, and the alternative racial harassment claim, on limitation grounds. It found that those claims were not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. No substantive merits findings were recorded in the written judgment, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Claim pleaded in the alternative to direct race discrimination; dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.