Case 3202543/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Paddy v Haggerston School and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3202543/2021
- Decision date
- 18 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs G McLaughlin, Mr M L Wood
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr T Paddy
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that Mr T Paddy's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded. The judgment does not set out the remedy for that claim because it directed that a separate remedy hearing take place on 9 October 2023 before Employment Judge Beyzade, Mrs G McLaughlin and Mr M L Wood at the East London Tribunal Centre.
The tribunal also dealt with two direct sex discrimination complaints. The allegation at paragraph 4.1(9) of the agreed list of issues was found not well founded and was dismissed. The complaints at paragraph 4.1(1)-(8) were dismissed on limitation grounds because they were presented outside the time limit in s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010, and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time under s.123(1)(b).
The claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was also dismissed. The tribunal found it was presented outside the time limit in s.23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 and declined to extend time under s.23(4) because it considered it reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the complaint within the relevant three-month period.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded. A remedy hearing was listed for 9 October 2023 to determine remedy for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of direct sex discrimination at paragraph 4.1(9) of the agreed list of issues was found not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaints of direct sex discrimination at paragraph 4.1(1)-(8) were presented outside the time limit in s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time under s.123(1)(b) and dismissed them. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was presented outside the time limit in s.23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal declined to extend time under s.23(4) because it found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the complaint before the end of the three-month period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- s.23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.