Case 3205584/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Miss R Bethune v London Borough of Newham — 2024

Case reference: 3205584/2022
Decision date: 7 June 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge B Beyzade Members
Venue: East London Hearing Centre
Panel members: Miss S Harwood, Mrs B K Saund

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss R Bethune

Respondent

London Borough of Newham

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge B Beyzade and lay members Miss S Harwood and Mrs B K Saund, gave a unanimous judgment on the claimant's race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation complaints. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.

For direct race discrimination, the tribunal recorded that some of the pleaded allegations had been withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52. It then held that a number of the remaining direct race discrimination allegations were presented outside the time limit in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010, that there was no continuing act in respect of them, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. Those complaints were dismissed.

The tribunal said that the remainder of the direct race discrimination complaints were not well founded and dismissed them. It applied the same approach to the harassment related to race complaints: some were withdrawn and dismissed under Rule 52, a number were found out of time with no continuing act and no just and equitable extension, and the remainder were not well founded and dismissed.

The victimisation complaint under section 27 Equality Act 2010 was found not well founded and dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award or any split of remedy by claim.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Some direct race discrimination complaints were withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52. The tribunal held that a number of the remaining allegations were presented outside the time limit in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010, found no continuing act in respect of them, and did not extend time on the just and equitable basis. The remainder of the direct race discrimination complaints were found not well founded and dismissed.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	Some harassment related to race complaints were withdrawn and dismissed under Rule 52. The tribunal held that a number of the remaining allegations were out of time under section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010, found no continuing act, and did not extend time. The remainder of the harassment complaints were found not well founded and dismissed.	Dismissed	Race	—
Victimisation	The victimisation complaint under section 27 Equality Act 2010 was found not well founded and dismissed. Separate victimisation allegations at paragraphs 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 of the List of Issues had been withdrawn and dismissed under Rule 52.	Dismissed	Race	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.