Case 2603318/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Anett Miklos in Person For the v Mr Wayne Smith, Solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603318/2019
- Decision date
- 5 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Clark
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Anett Miklos in Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge R Clark, sitting alone remotely on 28 January 2021. The tribunal dealt only with jurisdictional and time-limit issues, and the judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing; no written reasons were provided beyond the decision recorded in the judgment.
The claim of race discrimination was struck out because it had been presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time. The claim of religion or belief discrimination was struck out for the same reason. The judgment does not set out any further factual findings on those discrimination complaints.
The unfair dismissal claim was also struck out. The tribunal found that the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim and that none of the exceptions applied. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service to present the claim and none of the exceptions applied. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable to extend time
- sufficient qualifying service
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.