Case 6001221/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms J Chapman, solicitor — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001221/2023
- Decision date
- 9 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant gave oral evidence and the respondent made submissions. He accepted that he could not bring an unfair dismissal claim because he had less than two years' service, and he confirmed that his only direct race discrimination complaint was about the termination of his assignment with the respondent.
The tribunal found that Acas Early Conciliation had started on 4 July 2023, which was seven weeks later than it should have been if the usual three-month time limit had been observed. It decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time by seven weeks in the circumstances.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the race discrimination claim and that the claim could not proceed further under sections 6 and 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the claim was out of time. Acas Early Conciliation began on 4 July 2023, about seven weeks after it should have been commenced on the usual three-month time limit, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable extension of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010
- sections 6 and 123 Equality Act 2010
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.