Case 3309732/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Simak (counsel) For the First v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309732/2022
- Decision date
- 11 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smeaton Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs Simak (counsel) For the First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. The Respondents applied to strike out the discrimination allegations and, alternatively, for a deposit order. The tribunal accepted that the claim against the Second Respondent was out of time: the last act relied on could not have occurred on 14 March 2022 because the evidence showed the Claimant had booked that day off as holiday and had intended to collect his belongings on 12 March 2022. No grounds were identified to extend time on a just and equitable basis, so the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear that claim and struck it out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the claim against the Second Respondent was out of time and, alternatively, that the race discrimination allegations against both Respondents had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found this claim had little reasonable prospect of success but did not strike it out; it was allowed to proceed against the First Respondent only, subject to a £750 deposit order. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Cox v Adecco
- Ahir v British Airways Plc
- just and equitable extension of time
- continuing act
- rule 39 deposit order
- Jansen Van Rensburg v Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames
- Hemdan v Ishmail
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.