Case 3203347/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K. Lowe-Bennett v Goodmayes Primary School and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3203347/2021
- Decision date
- 9 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Representation
- Venue
- East London
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs K. Lowe-Bennett
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked at Goodmayes Primary School from 2013, resigned on 30 October 2020 and her employment ended on 31 December 2020. In Case 1 she presented an unfair dismissal claim on 12 May 2021 using the ACAS early conciliation number for the separate process against Ms Jaffar rather than the school's certificate. The tribunal held that the ET1 had to be rejected under Rule 12(1)(f) because the respondent named on the claim form did not match the prospective respondent on the certificate to which the number related, and it also held that, even if the correct certificate had been used, the claim would still have been out of time because it was presented after 6 May 2021 and the delay was not shown to be not reasonably practicable.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's explanation that the two early conciliation processes were effectively one, and found that she knew there were two separate certificates, knew she had one month from the relevant certificate, and simply confused the two. It also rejected reliance on ACAS correspondence of 11 and 12 May 2021 because the school's conciliation period had already ended and no amended certificate was produced. On that basis the application to amend Case 1 failed because there was no claim before the tribunal to amend.
In Case 2 the claimant alleged direct race discrimination and harassment related to race. The tribunal held that the pre-termination allegations were out of time, that there was no reasonable prospect of showing conduct extending over a period between the end of employment and the later reference issues, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for the pre-termination complaints. It struck out the remaining pre-termination race discrimination and harassment claims, but left the allegations about failure to provide references at paragraphs 4.16 and 4.17 of the grounds of complaint for the final hearing, treating them as potentially in time or potentially capable of extension. The tribunal also found that the claimant knew she could bring a race discrimination claim when Case 1 was issued but chose not to include it.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The ET1 ticked unfair dismissal (including constructive dismissal). The tribunal rejected the claim form under Rule 12(1)(f) because the ACAS early conciliation number related to Ms Jaffar rather than the school, and it also held that the claim would have been out of time in any event under the reasonably practicable test. The application to amend Case 1 therefore failed because there was no extant claim to amend. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The pre-termination direct race discrimination allegations were struck out as out of time. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of showing conduct extending over a period between the end of employment on 31 December 2020 and the post-termination reference allegations, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The allegations at paragraphs 4.16 and 4.17 about failure to provide references were left for the final hearing. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | The pre-termination harassment related to race allegations were struck out on the same limitation grounds. The tribunal found no conduct extending over a period and refused to extend time for the pre-termination complaints. The allegations at paragraphs 4.16 and 4.17 concerning failure to provide references were left for the final hearing. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- s.123 EqA
- Hendricks conduct extending over a period
- just and equitable test
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Caterham School Limited v Rose
- Rule 12(1)(f) ET Rules
- Rule 12(2A) ET Rules
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.