Case 2602922/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Patel of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602922/2018
- Decision date
- 31 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr D Patel of Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Clark sitting alone, the tribunal held that the claimant's complaint that Leicestershire County Council had failed to comply with s.80G(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and her related complaint that the rejection of her flexible working application was based on incorrect information, had been presented out of time. That claim was therefore struck out for want of jurisdiction.
The judgment states that the claimant's claim of indirect sex discrimination proceeds unaffected by this decision. No finding was made on that discrimination claim at this hearing, and no remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | The claimant's complaint that the respondent failed to comply with s.80G(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that the rejection of her flexible working application was based on incorrect information was presented out of time and struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.80G(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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
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.