Case 3311994/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For v Mr Khan, solicitor — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311994/2022
- Decision date
- 4 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Douse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered jurisdiction and case management issues across two consolidated claims. For claim 3311994/2022, the claimant had brought race discrimination allegations and had only identified an ACAS certificate for the second respondent when presenting the claim.
The Tribunal found that the race discrimination claims in the first claim against Hertfordshire County Council could not proceed because there had been no ACAS early conciliation for that respondent before presentation of the claim and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The Tribunal struck out those claims against the first respondent.
The Tribunal stated that the race discrimination claims in the first claim against Clare Macdonald would proceed to a final hearing. It made no findings at this preliminary hearing on continuing conduct or the merits of those harassment allegations.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination claims in the first claim were struck out against Hertfordshire County Council because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The race discrimination claims in the first claim against Clare Macdonald were not struck out and were to proceed to a final hearing. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- just and equitable to extend time
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 10(1)
- Rule 12
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.