Case 2600195/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Leicester City Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600195/2021
- Decision date
- 18 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed all claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 because they were presented out of time and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The judgment records that this dismissal did not affect any other claims. Those other claims were to be heard and determined in accordance with directions already given, which continued to apply.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers collectively to all claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 and does not separately identify each protected characteristic in the extracted text; race is taken from the listing category. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment refers collectively to all claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 and does not separately identify each protected characteristic in the extracted text; religion or belief is taken from the listing category. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment refers collectively to all claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 and does not separately identify each protected characteristic in the extracted text; sex is taken from the listing category. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend 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.