Case 3310743/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Christy Howells v Herbalife Europe Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310743/2022
- Decision date
- 8 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Christy Howells
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Christy Howells worked for Herbalife Europe Ltd as a Senior Creative Designer from 12 August 2019 until she resigned on 25 March 2022, leaving at the end of her notice on 25 April 2022. She alleged that her line manager treated female staff differently from male colleagues and raised those concerns in an internal grievance. The tribunal found that the three-month limitation period expired on 24 July 2022 and that the claim form was not presented until 16 August 2022. Although she contacted ACAS on 10 August 2022 and obtained a certificate on 16 August 2022, that was outside the primary time limit.
For the constructive unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied the reasonably practicable test under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claimant knew she may have a constructive dismissal claim in April 2022, including because she referred to constructive unfair dismissal in her grievance email and had been advised by her partner to contact ACAS. The tribunal held that it was reasonably feasible for her to research and present the claim in time, and that waiting for the grievance outcome was not enough to justify the delay. That claim was therefore struck out because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.
For the direct sex discrimination claim, the tribunal applied the just and equitable test under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010. It accepted that the claimant had waited for the grievance outcome, but considered the overall delay, the limited prejudice to the respondent, and the material already gathered in the grievance investigation. The tribunal also noted that the grievance outcome referred to unconscious bias and could support the claimant's case on the merits. Balancing those factors, it extended time and allowed the sex discrimination claim to proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant presented the case as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to present it within time, found the claim was out of time, and struck it out for lack of jurisdiction at the preliminary hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds and allowed the direct sex discrimination claim to proceed to a final hearing. No merits finding was made at this hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Abertawebro Morgannwg University Health Board v Morgan
- Bowden v Ministry of Justice
- Apelogun-Gabriels v London Borough of Lambeth
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Limited
- Walls Meat Company Limited v Khan
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Miller v The Ministry of Justice
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.