Case 3305922/2024 · Employment Tribunal
the Claimant attended without a representative For the v Ms A. Meredith — 2026
- Case reference
- 3305922/2024
- Decision date
- 19 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M. Hunt Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
the Claimant attended without a representative For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the respondent's application to strike out the claim at Reading by CVP on 19 January 2026. The claimant attended without a representative and the respondent was represented by Ms A. Meredith.
The respondent's application succeeded in part. The Tribunal struck out the direct discrimination complaints in paragraphs 30.1.1 to 30.1.5 and the harassment complaints in paragraphs 31.1.1 to 31.1.5 of EJ Graham's Case Management Order of 14 February 2025 because they were brought too late and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine them.
The judgment records no remedy award. Reasons were given orally, with written reasons to be provided only if requested within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out the direct discrimination complaints recorded at paragraphs 30.1.1 to 30.1.5 of EJ Graham's Case Management Order of 14 February 2025 because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction, the complaints having been brought too late. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment struck out the harassment complaints recorded at paragraphs 31.1.1 to 31.1.5 of EJ Graham's Case Management Order of 14 February 2025 because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction, the complaints having been brought too late. The protected characteristic is inferred from the listing category of Race Discrimination and related direct discrimination claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
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.