Case 6000122/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Moffatt v Home Office Heard by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000122/2022
- Decision date
- 25 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Moffatt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms A Moffatt, brought generic claims of sex, age and disability discrimination against the Home Office. The Tribunal identified the issue as whether the claims, presented on 19 December 2022, were in time or whether time should be extended under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. It applied the principle that the onus was on the claimant to show that an extension was just and equitable, citing Robertson v Bexley Community Centre trading as Leisure Link [2003] IRLR 434 CA.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Generic sex discrimination claim dismissed because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal refused to extend time under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | Generic age discrimination claim dismissed because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Generic disability discrimination claim dismissed because it was presented out of time; the Tribunal noted the claimant did not rely on menopausal symptoms or any other disability-based explanation for the delay. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre trading as Leisure Link [2003] IRLR 434 CA
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.