Case 3301692/2024 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2025

Case reference: 3301692/2024
Decision date: 8 September 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge M Warren Appearances

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a public preliminary hearing on 24 July 2025 before Employment Judge M Warren, the tribunal considered whether the claimant’s claims were presented in time. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The hearing was listed in the case of Ms A Williams v Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited.

The tribunal held that the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been brought in time. That claim was therefore dismissed.

The tribunal also held that the claimant’s sex, age and race discrimination claims were out of time. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend time for those claims, and they were dismissed for that reason. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note appended to the decision.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Held out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time.	Dismissed	—	—
Sex discrimination	Held out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Age discrimination	Held out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time.	Dismissed	Age	—
Race discrimination	Held out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time.	Dismissed	Race	—

Legal tests applied

2 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.

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.