Case 3313144/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Kate Evans v Reading Borough Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 3313144/2020
- Decision date
- 19 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Kate Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Kate Evans brought complaints against Reading Borough Council including discrimination on the grounds of disability and sex, non-payment of wages, outstanding holiday pay, and other payments in breach of contract. The Tribunal recorded that the complaints were brought on 2 November 2020 and determined jurisdiction at a remote hearing on 16 December 2021.
Employment Judge Tobin held that the disability and sex discrimination complaints were presented outside the time limit in s123 Equality Act 2010. Having considered the circumstances, the Tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time for those complaints.
The Tribunal also held that the claims for non-payment of wages, outstanding holiday pay, and other breach of contract payments were presented outside the time limits in s23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 and article 7 Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) (England & Wales) Order 1994. It found that it had been reasonably practicable for those claims to be presented within the appropriate time limits and, in any event, they were not presented within a further period the Tribunal considered reasonable.
The Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear any of the complaints brought by the claimant on 2 November 2020. The proceedings were dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the Tribunal held the disability discrimination complaints were presented outside the time limit in s123 Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed because the Tribunal held the sex discrimination complaints were presented outside the time limit in s123 Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes claims for non-payment of wages. They were dismissed for being outside the time limits in s23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996, with no extension because timely presentation was reasonably practicable and the claims were not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes claims for outstanding holiday pay. They were dismissed as out of time under the time limits referred to in the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes claims for other payments in breach of contract. They were dismissed for being outside the time limit in article 7 Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) (England & Wales) Order 1994, with no extension because timely presentation was reasonably practicable and the claims were not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s123 Equality Act 2010
- s23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- article 7 Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) (England & Wales) Order 1994
- just and equitable to extend time
- reasonably practicable
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.