Case 3311557/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2023

Case reference: 3311557/2022
Decision date: 8 April 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge French Appearances
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the Watford Employment Tribunal on 5 April 2023, Employment Judge French dealt with the claimant's race discrimination, unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claims. The race discrimination claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction because it had been presented out of time and the tribunal was not prepared to extend time on a just and equitable basis under s123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010.

The unfair dismissal claim was also struck out for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment states that the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim and that no automatically unfair reason was asserted. The whistleblowing claim was recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Struck out for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time under s123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010.	Struck out	Race	—
Unfair dismissal	Struck out for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant lacked sufficient qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim and no automatically unfair reason was asserted.	Struck out	—	—
Whistleblowing	Recorded in the judgment as dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 PDF on gov.uk

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.