Case 3319017/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Mizon, CAB v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3319017/2019
- Decision date
- 6 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kurrein JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr K Mizon, CAB
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant had been employed by the Respondent as one of his carers from 1 August 2016. She alleged that she was sexually harassed throughout the engagement and resigned on 3 December 2017. The judgment records that the Claimant had earlier correspondence and proceedings in which the wrong respondent was named, followed by a strike-out decision on 6 June 2019 because the first respondent was not the employer and there was no early conciliation certificate in the second respondent's name.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary time-limit and jurisdiction decision only. The tribunal extended time under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and held it had jurisdiction to hear the Claimant's sex discrimination/sexual harassment claim; it did not determine the merits. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
- Keeble factors
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- British Coal Corpn v Keeble
- Chohan v Derby Law Centre
- Drake International Systems Ltd v Blue Arrow Ltd
- Giny v SNA Transport Ltd
- Mist v Derby Community NHS Trust
- Virdi v Comr of Police of the Metropolis
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.