Case 3201180/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Fantie v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201180/2019
- Decision date
- 20 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Fantie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered the claimant's claims of direct race discrimination, harassment and victimisation. It found that those claims had been presented outside the primary time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
The Tribunal decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time for bringing the race discrimination complaints. It therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider those claims, and dismissed them.
The judgment states that the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages were unaffected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment describes this as direct race discrimination and dismisses it because it was presented outside the primary time limit in section 123 Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment lists harassment with the race discrimination complaints and dismisses it as out of time, with no extension of time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment lists victimisation among claims dismissed for being presented outside the section 123 Equality Act 2010 primary time limit. The protected characteristic for the victimisation complaint is not separately specified. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- 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.
- 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.