Case 3305306/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Abrahams Srhir v Battersea Bridge House Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3305306/2021
- Decision date
- 3 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Abrahams Srhir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Skehan, sitting alone at Watford by CVP on 28 June 2022, recorded that the claimant's discrimination claims for sex, race and age were not presented within the time limits in sections 123(1)(a) and (b) of the Equality Act 2010, as extended by section 140B. On that basis, the tribunal struck those claims out because it did not have jurisdiction to hear them.
The tribunal made the same jurisdictional finding in relation to the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. It held that the claim had not been presented in accordance with sections 111(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as extended by section 207B, and therefore struck out that claim as well. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Claim was not presented within the time limits in sections 123(1)(a) and (b) Equality Act 2010 as extended by section 140B; tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim was not presented within the time limits in sections 123(1)(a) and (b) Equality Act 2010 as extended by section 140B; tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Claim was not presented within the time limits in sections 123(1)(a) and (b) Equality Act 2010 as extended by section 140B; tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim was not presented to the tribunal in accordance with sections 111(2)(a) and (b) Employment Rights Act 1996 as extended by section 207B; tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- s.140B Equality Act 2010
- s.111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
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.