Case 3202068/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss W Golding v London Borough of Havering — 2019
- Case reference
- 3202068/2018
- Decision date
- 12 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss W Golding
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on time limits in claims by Miss Golding against London Borough of Havering. The claims identified were harassment relating to sex, direct sex discrimination and victimisation. The Tribunal did not determine the substantive merits of those claims.
The harassment allegations concerned an individual referred to as Daniel and were said to have occurred between summer 2017 and 30 November 2017. The Tribunal found those harassment complaints were out of time, with a delay from 28 February 2018 to 26 September 2018, but accepted that Miss Golding had been waiting for the Respondent to deal with her complaint while the Respondent was waiting for the police investigation to complete. Taking account of prejudice, the police investigation, attempts to obtain advice, and the possibility of a fair hearing, the Tribunal found it was just and equitable to extend time. The harassment claim could therefore proceed.
The direct sex discrimination allegations ran from 30 November 2017 to 2 July 2018, including an allegation about being told she could not use the CCTV car. Because the 2 July 2018 allegation was in time and there was potential for earlier allegations to be connected acts, the Tribunal reserved the question whether the direct discrimination complaints were out of time to the Tribunal hearing the final case.
The victimisation allegations relied on protected acts including the grievance about Daniel dated 4 December 2017 and complaints to Ms Mahoney and Ms Delahunty. The alleged detriments included complaints not being dealt with, comments or actions by colleagues, reduction in shifts, refusals to work with Miss Golding, and the CCTV car allegation. The Tribunal held that there was potential for the acts to be linked as a corporate, cultural or collective reaction to Miss Golding's complaints, and reserved the time-limit decision on victimisation to the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The preliminary hearing found the harassment complaint was out of time but that it was just and equitable to extend time, so the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider it. No merits determination was made. | Other | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Whether the direct sex discrimination complaints were in time was reserved to the final hearing. No merits determination was made. | Other | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Whether the victimisation complaints were in time was reserved to the final hearing. No merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Cohan v Derby Law Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Robertson v Bexley Community Services
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire v Caston
- s.123(3) Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioners
- s.18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- s.140B Equality Act 2010
- Luton Borough Council v Haque
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.