Case 6004974/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C T Manolache v RDF Leisure Ltd Subway — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004974/2024
- Decision date
- 29 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C T Manolache
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge Eeley at Manchester on 23 June 2025. The claimant, Ms C T Manolache, appeared in person and the respondent, RDF Leisure Ltd Subway, was represented by Ms Fairbairn, Director.
The tribunal struck out the claim of harassment related to race. It held that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of success in showing that the claim was presented within the applicable time limit, and also had no reasonable prospect of success in establishing that it would be just and equitable to extend the time limit so that the claim could be heard.
No remedy was awarded because the claim was struck out at the preliminary stage.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment describes this as a claim of harassment related to race and states it is struck out at a preliminary hearing because the claimant had no reasonable prospect of success in showing that it was presented within the applicable time limit and no reasonable prospect of success in establishing that it would be just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonable prospect of success
- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.