Case 3201158/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sapphire Clarke v The Mossbourne Federation — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201158/2023
- Decision date
- 15 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sugarman Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sapphire Clarke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard a preliminary issue only: whether the Claimant’s Equality Act 2010 complaints were in time, or whether it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1). The last pleaded act of discrimination remained the incident said to have occurred on or around 29 November 2022, after the application to amend to add dismissal allegations was refused. The Claim Form was presented on 28 June 2023, following ACAS Early Conciliation that began on 26 April 2023 and ended with a certificate issued on 7 June 2023.
The tribunal accepted that the Claimant had been signed off work in December 2022 for stress, but found that she returned to work in early January 2023 and worked until dismissal on 12 January 2023. It rejected her evidence that she remained too unwell to pursue matters, noting that she secured a new role by 23 January 2023, asked for a reference, made a detailed grievance on 24 February 2023, and engaged with the Respondent’s independent investigator. It also found that she was directed by ACAS to information about time limits on 23 February 2023 and that her grievance referred to a caseworker taking over her case under the reconciliation process before tribunal.
The tribunal did not accept that ACAS had told her she had to wait for the grievance process to finish before starting Early Conciliation, and it found that by late February 2023 she knew, or ought to have known, about tribunal time limits and the need to use Early Conciliation. It also found that after Early Conciliation ended she waited a further three weeks before presenting the claim, which it regarded as unexplained delay. Having weighed the claimant’s explanations against the Respondent’s forensic prejudice, including the absence of any contemporaneous grievance, the departure of several potentially relevant witnesses, and the dependence of the allegations on oral evidence and recollection, the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the Equality Act 2010 claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination claim pleaded with direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation; dismissed because the tribunal found all Equality Act 2010 claims were brought outside the three-month time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Sex discrimination claim pleaded with direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation; dismissed because the tribunal found all Equality Act 2010 claims were brought outside the three-month time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed together with the other Equality Act 2010 claims on the preliminary issue of time limit and jurisdiction; the merits were not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed together with the other Equality Act 2010 claims on the preliminary issue of time limit and jurisdiction; the merits were not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s123(1) Equality Act 2010
- s140B Equality Act 2010
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Apelogun-Gabriels v London Borough of Lambeth
- Robinson v Post Office
- Perth and Kinross Council v Townsley
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Miller v MoJ and Thompson v MoJ
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
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.