Case 3301456/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Reese v Krispy Kreme UK Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3301456/2021
- Decision date
- 25 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin
- Panel members
- Mrs V Parsons, Ms C Tufts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Reese
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge G Tobin heard the case remotely by cloud video platform on 16 February 2022, with Mrs V Parsons and Ms C Tufts sitting as lay members. The parties had consented to the remote hearing. The tribunal held that the claimant's race discrimination complaints were presented outside the time limit in s123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for those complaints.
The judgment also states that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the remaining complaints brought by the claimant on 25 February 2021, and proceedings were dismissed. No monetary remedy or award is recorded in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the race discrimination complaints were presented outside the time limit in s123 Equality Act 2010 and was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Other | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the remaining complaints brought on 25 February 2021; the extracted text does not identify those complaints separately. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of 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.