Case 2600051/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Halui Melisa Angus v v Academy Enterprises Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600051/2022
- Decision date
- 13 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Halui Melisa Angus v
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Blackwell sitting alone on 30 May 2022. The listed issues were whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction because the claim appeared to have been presented out of time, whether judgment should be entered for the Claimant under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, and, if so, what remedy should follow.
The hearing did not resolve those issues. Miss Murphy for the Respondent raised the existence of concurrent proceedings in Watford Employment Tribunal, said to concern alleged discrimination before the Claimant’s dismissal on 31 July 2021, and noted that the Watford claim had been struck out but was subject to an unresolved reconsideration application. Mr Ibikwe had no knowledge of those proceedings, and the parties agreed that the Tribunal should not determine the listed issues at that stage.
The Tribunal observed that, on the face of the papers, the primary limitation period for the claims appeared to have begun no later than 31 July 2021, that the claim was not presented until 9 January 2022, and that the Early Conciliation Certificate did not appear to assist because date A was 25 November 2021, after the primary limitation period had expired. The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange the relevant papers from the Midlands East and Watford cases and to make representations within 28 days as to how the two claims should proceed, with all case management orders stayed in the meantime.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | At the open preliminary hearing on 30 May 2022, the tribunal did not determine the merits of the claims, the time limit issue, any Rule 21 application, or any remedy. The case was adjourned and case management orders were stayed. | Other | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.