Case 6007196/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Stichova v Hwa Seob Lee (Charles Lee) OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard by CVP on 2 October 2025 — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007196/2025
- Decision date
- 7 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Stichova
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing on 2 October 2025, Employment Judge Nicolle heard from the claimant by telephone from Greece and from the respondent through Ms B Odey, solicitor. The judgment concerns claims of age, sex and sexual orientation discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear those claims because they were not submitted within the time period in section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. It also found that it would not be just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b).
The respondent had argued in the alternative that the out-of-time claims had no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal said it was unnecessary to strike out the claims because it lacked jurisdiction, but added that, if jurisdiction had existed, the claims would have been struck out on that alternative basis. Oral reasons were given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the age discrimination claim was not presented within the time limit in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b). It also said that, alternatively, the claim would have been struck out for no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 38(1)(a) of the ET Procedure Rules 2024. | Other | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the sex discrimination claim was not presented within the time limit in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b). It also said that, alternatively, the claim would have been struck out for no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 38(1)(a) of the ET Procedure Rules 2024. | Other | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the sexual orientation discrimination claim was not presented within the time limit in section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b). It also said that, alternatively, the claim would have been struck out for no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 38(1)(a) of the ET Procedure Rules 2024. | Other | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 just and equitable test
- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.