Case 6009115/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Taylor v His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009115/2024
- Decision date
- 25 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned a public preliminary hearing about two race-related allegations from 2019: an alleged comment by Lisa Guppy and an alleged incident involving David Kershaw on 18 December 2019. The claimant presented her claim on 21 August 2024 after early conciliation in 2024.
The Tribunal found that the two allegations were presented out of time, were not part of conduct extending over a period of time, and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. It therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear those two allegations and struck them out; the judgment noted that other claims, including disability discrimination claims, would proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Preliminary hearing judgment only. The Tribunal struck out the two race-related harassment allegations at paragraphs 7(a) and 7(b) of the List of Issues as out of time and outside its jurisdiction; other claims were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- just and equitable extension of time
- conduct extending over a period of time
- Madarrasy v Nomura International plc [2007] IRLR 246
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.