Case 4107851/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Wieteska v HC-One Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107851/2020
- Decision date
- 2 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Wieteska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing dealing with time bar and strike out, not a final merits determination of the discrimination claim. The tribunal held that alleged discriminatory incidents in 2014 and 2018 were separate events, involved different people, were not part of conduct extending over a period, and therefore were out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal also refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. It placed weight on the length of the delay, the claimant having received legal advice in 2014 and 2018, the lack of explanation for not bringing claims earlier, and the reduced availability and quality of evidence because the individuals involved were no longer employed by the respondent.
The respondent's application to strike out the remaining claim was refused. The judge found that the claimant had not adequately specified her comparator case or loss, but concluded that she was still trying to pursue the claim and that strike out would be too severe at that stage. An Unless Order was made requiring further details of the alleged less favourable treatment after 11 July 2020 and of the compensation claimed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | This was a preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that allegations said to have occurred in 2014 and 2018 were presented out of time and would not proceed, but refused to strike out the remaining direct race discrimination claim relating to alleged events after 11 July 2020. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- conduct extending over a period
- 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.