Case 3305426/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Katia Segor First v Secretary of State for Justice Second Respondent: Mr Michael Spellman — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305426/2022
- Decision date
- 17 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrew Clarke
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Katia Segor First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the claim form. It considered the nature and timing of the proposed amendments, the absence of an explanation for why the matters had not been included earlier, and the balance of hardship and injustice between the parties.
The tribunal found that the harassment claims had been presented outside the primary limitation period in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It did not accept that the claimant's health, her children's health, or lack of knowledge sufficiently explained the delay, and concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
As a result, the harassment claims against both respondents were dismissed and all claims against the second respondent were dismissed. The victimisation claim against the first respondent was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The harassment claims against both respondents were dismissed because they were presented outside the primary limitation period and the tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Selkent Bus Co v Moore
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
- just and equitable extension of time
- Accurist Watches Ltd v Wadher
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
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.