Case 3400042/2017 · Employment Tribunal

In Person For the v Respondent — 2018

Case reference: 3400042/2017
Decision date: 27 September 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In Person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the open preliminary hearing on 10 May 2018, Employment Judge Alliott dealt with consolidated case numbers 3400042/2017 and 3325087/2017, involving Miss Kerry Hughes and Network Rail Infrastructure Limited. The first claim was described as pregnancy/maternity discrimination and sex discrimination, and the second claim as pregnancy/maternity discrimination, sex discrimination and unfair dismissal (constructive). The tribunal listed the full liability hearing for six days starting on 14 January 2019 at Watford.

The respondent maintained that the allegations in both claim forms were prima facie out of time, but it no longer pursued an argument that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The judge's preliminary view was that the complaints formed part of a chain of events culminating within the three months before presentation of the claim forms, so it was not necessary to extend time; for avoidance of doubt, if any extension was required, the judge granted it.

The claimant's application to amend the first claim was allowed. The judge described most of the proposed changes as labelling exercises in relation to facts already pleaded, apart from a limited number of paragraphs which were already live issues in the second claim. The judge considered it would be artificial to exclude reliance on those points in the first claim, particularly given the respondent's position on time.

The issues identified for the later hearing included constructive dismissal based on an alleged breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, direct sex and pregnancy/maternity discrimination, and section 19 indirect discrimination in relation to sex. Remedy issues were listed only contingently, including reinstatement, re-engagement, declaration, compensation for loss of earnings, injury to feelings, breach of contract and interest, if the claimant succeeded in whole or part.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	The second claim included unfair dismissal (constructive). At this preliminary hearing the tribunal dealt with limitation and amendment issues only, held that the complaints were not out of time or granted any necessary extension, and did not determine liability.	Other	—	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The first and second claims included pregnancy/maternity discrimination. The tribunal considered the time objection, concluded the complaints formed part of a chain of events ending within the limitation period or granted any needed extension, and left the merits for the later hearing.	Other	Pregnancy and maternity	—
Sex discrimination	The first and second claims included sex discrimination, with the later issues list also referring to direct and section 19 indirect sex discrimination. No liability finding was made at this hearing; the tribunal dealt only with time and amendment points and listed the case for a later merits hearing.	Other	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

4 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.

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.