Case 3312672/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Atkinson v Medical Research Council and 2 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 3312672/2019
- Decision date
- 2 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Representation
- Venue
- Cambridge Hearing Centre
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss C Atkinson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing at Cambridge Hearing Centre on 2 January 2020 before Employment Judge Foxwell, Miss C Atkinson's claim against the First Respondent, Medical Research Council, was dismissed because it was withdrawn. No merits determination was made on that claim.
The Tribunal held that the claims against the Second and Third Respondents, UK Research and Innovation and Andrew McKenzie, had been presented outside the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It did not find it just and equitable to extend time, so those claims were dismissed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear them. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The Claimant's claim against the First Respondent, Medical Research Council, was dismissed on withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The claims against the Second and Third Respondents, UK Research and Innovation and Andrew McKenzie, were presented outside the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal did not find it just and equitable to extend time and therefore dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
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.