Case 6000071/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Tudzie v Harrods Ltd. and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 6000071/2025
- Decision date
- 9 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London South
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms M Tudzie
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 9 July 2026, the Tribunal found that Ms Tudzie's final allegations, which occurred on 5 August 2024, had not been presented within the applicable time limit. It nevertheless considered it just and equitable to extend time, so the claims were permitted to proceed.
The Tribunal did not decide whether there was a continuing act or whether it would be just and equitable to extend time for any earlier allegation. It made no determination on the merits of the claims and recorded no remedy or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not identify the claim type; classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. No merits outcome was determined. The final allegations dated 5 August 2024 may proceed following a just and equitable extension of time. | Other | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment does not identify the claim type; classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. No merits outcome was determined. The final allegations dated 5 August 2024 may proceed following a just and equitable extension of time. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.