Case 3202874/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss W Faminu v London Borough of Hackney — 2022
- Case reference
- 3202874/2022
- Decision date
- 13 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss W Faminu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary issue was whether time should be extended under s123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 for a sexual harassment claim presented on 28 April 2022. The Tribunal found that the last act complained of was on 15 November 2021, so the primary limitation period expired on 14 February 2022. The Claimant contacted ACAS on 26 April 2022 and did not obtain any extension through early conciliation because ACAS was not contacted within the primary time limit.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant had raised a post-employment grievance and had waited for its outcome, but that she had access to advice through UNISON and was capable of finding information about tribunal time limits. It found that until around the end of March 2022 she did not want to bring a claim and wanted the grievance process to resolve matters, and that between the end of March and 26 April 2022 she was making up her mind about whether to bring a claim.
The Tribunal took account of the Respondent's delay in issuing the grievance outcome and the prejudice to the Claimant in being unable to pursue serious allegations. It also considered the length and reasons for the delay, the availability of advice, the fact that the Claimant had left employment, and the prejudice to the Respondent of facing a late claim. Weighing all factors, it held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The claim was described as a claim for sexual harassment. It was dismissed at a preliminary hearing because it was presented outside the Equality Act 2010 time limit and the Tribunal declined to extend time, so the substantive allegations were not determined. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- s33(5) Limitation Act 1980
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Abertawe Local Health Board v Morgan
- Apelogum-Gabriels v Lambeth BC
- Robinson v Post Office
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.