Case 3202385/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Dr R A Hackley v Queen Mary University of London — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202385/2018
- Decision date
- 31 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr P Quinn, Mrs BK Saund
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr R A Hackley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the Claimant's allegations relating to events before 2017 because the claim was issued after the applicable statutory time limit and it would not be just and equitable to extend time.
The Tribunal further held that the Claimant's allegations relating to events from 2017 onwards failed and were dismissed. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally and does not provide further findings on the substance of the allegations.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as Race Discrimination. The written judgment states that allegations before 2017 were out of time and not extended, and allegations from 2017 onwards failed and were dismissed; it does not set out the individual allegations. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as Sex Discrimination. The written judgment states that allegations before 2017 were out of time and not extended, and allegations from 2017 onwards failed and were dismissed; it does not set out the individual allegations. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.
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.